Pros and Cons of Light-Duty Work

When an employer decides whether to return an injured employee to light-duty work, the obvious first question to consider is, “Would it be beneficial?” This question has several moving parts that often involve ethical considerations. 

Advantages of Offering Light Duty

Returning an employee to work demonstrates that the employer values the employee. Offering light duty can also speed up the timeline for an employee’s return to full duty. It is widely accepted that the longer a workers’ compensation claimant is out of work, the less likely they are to actually return. With that in mind, giving an injured worker some sort of light work can increase the likelihood of a full-duty return. 

The “get out of bed” impact cannot be overestimated. When the injured employee must get up, dress, and prepare for and get to work, they are forced back into the work routine. This established routine is conducive to returning to productivity. Although many claimants would choose to stay at home, this return to a regular schedule can be advantageous for both the employer and the employee. 

Financial stability for the claimant is available when they return to work and earn a full wage. An employee’s perception of their ability to earn a living is integral to their self-worth. 

Returning a claimant to work can also ensure the employer has more contact with treating physicians. In the light-duty work scenario, the employer sees the employee every day, assesses their ability to do a job, checks in on their physical well-being, and has a “day-to-day” knowledge of their status. Updated treatment reports are important for the employer to determine when the employee can return to regular duty and what options exist for continued light-duty work. 

Offers of light duty often provide leverage for settlement. A worker who has been home for an extended period may become complacent and, therefore, more willing to settle before starting the light-duty job. This happens frequently. 

Finally, a claimant returning to work reduces employer indemnity exposure. When a claimant is not paid indemnity benefits because they returned to work, the wage benefits paid under workers’ compensation decrease. 

Disadvantages of Light-Duty Job Offers

On the other hand, a light-duty job provides potential for reinjury, especially in repetitive motion cases. It is important for the employer to evaluate the risks of reinjury versus the benefits of the claimant returning to work.

The inconvenience, hassle, and cost of light-duty programs can be prohibitive. Generally, larger employers have developed specific light-duty jobs for injured employees. Smaller employers typically have less rigidity in their return-to-work programs, which are usually conducted with a little more flexibility and less detail.  

Internal politics also come into play in a light-duty return to work. It can be difficult to keep the general work population happy when they are being paid the same amount for doing their full-duty jobs as someone who is doing extremely light work. This scenario can erode the workforce morale if not properly managed.

Light-duty protocols can create tension between the employee and their treating physicians. Inherent in a return-to-work offer is a request by the employer for the doctor to sign a light-duty return-to-work release. Employees often disagree with a doctor’s return-to-work determination. As the restrictions change and the light-duty job offer evolves, that tension can increase. 

Light-Duty Job’s Suitability

The suitability of the light-duty job and the reasonableness of a claimant’s refusal to take the job are two areas of consideration fraught with ethical issues. 

One of the biggest ethical hurdles employers face is determining what job to offer the claimant. The time, place, and shift of a job, as well as the claimant’s personal circumstances, can directly influence whether the job is suitable or refusal to take the job is reasonable. 

In Georgia, the determination of a job’s suitability must address the employee’s physical ability to do the job. The inquiry must also include an analysis of whether a refusal, if made, is reasonable. 

For example, a location change to accommodate light duty might impact a claimant’s ability to pick up their children after day care, and their refusal might be deemed reasonable. Light-duty offers should include an ethical analysis regarding the time and place of the job in question and the claimant’s personal circumstances to determine suitability. 

The job’s business viability should also be considered. Employers have often simply created a job the claimant can return to in order to get them out of their home, but these jobs may or may not actually benefit the business; that is, they may only exist to pressure a claimant to return to work. Generally, administrative law judges do not appreciate this approach. 

Rusty Watts is an attorney with Swift Currie in Atlanta.