Reducing Long-Term Disability
Wednesday, December 31, 1969 | 0
By Terri L. Herring-Puz
Welch & Condon
Someone asked, “what are the benefits of having a light-duty program?”
It’s a really good question, and I suppose you would get different
answers depending on who you ask. While I fully realize light-duty
programs are a cost saving mechanism for employers, I don’t believe
these programs are inherently evil. I won’t bore you with the research,
but it seems well accepted the longer an injured worker is away from
employment, the more devastating the financial impact on that worker and
their family. Staying connected to your work place, and returning to
some type of daily work activity as soon as possible, can be much better
than long-term disability. Those who have a strong work ethic and a
sense of self which is closely tied to employment, can avoid the
feelings of loss and hopelessness which come with losing that employment
or ability to work.
However, like everything else in life, light-duty programs run the
gambit from good, to bad, to really ugly. There are those which are
designed and intended to do all the right things; keep the worker
connected to employment, offer meaningful work at fair pay, while
affording dignity, respect and security. And, there are those whose
main goal seems to be to create such a hostile work environment that the
worker will quit, or be set up for termination. The question is, how do
we create incentives for the former and discourage the latter? How do
we create a culture where employers and employees both see the benefit
of working together to insure quick, meaningful, and permanent return to
work after an industrial injury or occupational disease?
I don’t mean that to be a rhetorical question – I really am looking for
ideas. I think we have an opportunity in this state to move forward with
productive changes which improve return to work and reduce long-term
disability, like the Vocational Improvement Project which is currently
in year two of a five-year pilot. I’m not talking about redefining what
is or is not an injury, or allowing workers to settle claims for a lump
sum rather than holding employers accountable. These maneuvers may
reduce costs, but they do not address return to work or reduce long-term
disability. We don’t need to shift the problem out of sight, we need to
solve it.
From a workers perspective, what will encourage a return to work? From
an employer perspective, what reduces the risk of retaining a worker who
has sustained an injury? How do we reshape the trajectory of our work
lives so that as we age work duties become less physically demanding,
thereby reducing the prevalence of injury and occupational disease? Our
aging work force has value, with skills and knowledge that can and
should be used. How do we harness that skill and knowledge when their
bodies start to fail them?
Light-duty programs are one tool which can be used to reduce long-term
disability. The trick is to insure it is used for the right reasons at
the right time. The bigger trick is to put more tools in the toolbox.
<i>Terri L. Herring Puz is an attorney for Welch & Condon, a
Tacoma law firm that represents claimants. This column was reprinted
with the firm's permission from its blog, which can be found here:
</i>http://washingtonworkerscompensation.wordpress.com/</i>
Comments