light work offers
For one, L&I offers cost reimbursement to employers. Here, employers are eligible to recover costs when they accommodate employees after a work injury and offer them light duty. L&I refers to this program as Stay at Work (WA-SAW). Explicitly, if a work injury claimant is limited by conditions related to the claim, the employer may offer a job that meets those limitations. Interestingly, L&I considers light duty valid if it meets the following criteria:
1) The work injury claimant must be limited by the conditions that relate to their workers’ compensation claim. These limitations must affect your ability to work.
2) The employer must submit a written (and detailed) job description for light duty to the treating physician.
3) The supplier in charge must approve the light duty in writing.
Once the criteria are met, the employer can make a light job offer to the worker. Light duty offerings vary significantly between employers and industries. For example, grocery stores often offer light duty stock clerks or cashiers as receptionists. Also, another good example is sedentary office work. Also, if the wages for the new job are 5% less (or lower) than what the worker earned before, then the worker can apply for loss of earning power benefits.
The economic incentives of this program are advantageous for employers. In fact, the program has many other benefits as well. For one thing, after an accident at work, it helps keep employers and employees connected during the recovery process. Additionally, it creates less ambiguity regarding the employment status of the employee. These benefits only come when the program is used for the right reasons. Unfortunately, all too often, that is not the case.
The reality of light duty in some L&I claims
I have seen employers offer light “jobs” such as watching safety videos throughout the work shift. I’ve also seen light “job” offerings that involve sitting at a desk doing nothing. Clearly these are not legitimate light jobs and the only intention behind them is to save costs. Sometimes employers ask workplace injury claimants to perform tasks outside of the details in their job description. Other times, employers require the worker to perform tasks that are contraindicated by explicit medical limitations. Realistically, many complain of harassment and intimidation while trying to do light work.
Some employers tell light-duty employees to schedule medical appointments and treatments outside of work hours. This can be difficult, if not impossible. Finally, many workers are placed under a performance microscope while doing light-duty work. For example, when the employer writes them down for being one minute late. Another example is when the employer writes them out for playing a game on their cell phone out of sheer boredom because the light duty was a desk job doing nothing. Another is to write to the employee because he or she places your swollen foot on a desk shelf to reduce pain and swelling while doing a job of doing nothing. These are all real life examples. Surprisingly, when personnel records are inspected, one must ask why this excessive performance monitoring did not occur prior to the work injury or occupational disease.
Advocate for people with a workers’ compensation claim
In the past, I have been criticized by employers and white-collar workers for my criticisms of L&I programs like WA-SAW. Proponents of the program cite studies, graphs, and data showing that returning to work early (even on light duty) dramatically reduces long-term disability. I do not dispute these findings. I also want the workers I represent to regain their quality of life, including their full earning potential, as quickly as possible. However, I believe that the WA-SAW program is often misused and fails to achieve its intended goals.
Too often, when employers use the program solely to save costs without regard to the feelings or needs of the work injury claimant, I see workers bitter with their employer. I see work environments become hostile, mental health conditions develop, and L&I claims become unnecessarily contentious. It is for that reason that I will continue to advocate for a more worker-focused review of these incentive programs.
This article was first published at https://tarareck.com/light-duty-work/