The Benefits of Working Following an Industrial Injury

Sunday, January 19, 2003 | 0

This can be viewed from two directions, one as the employer and the other as the injured worker. I will try to answer both.

From the employer's standpoint, an injured worker has less temporary disability the sooner he returns to work. It follows, the more the worker is at home with nothing to do, the more likely he is to become depressed and the more difficult it is for him to actually return to work.

This also requires the employer to use credible, honest doctors to treat injured workers. The employer has the right to control, in most instances, medical treatment for the first thirty days following the injury. This does not mean you have to get the doctor to release him to return to work in that time period. It just means you don't have to pay the doctors who treat him during the first thirty days. There are many lost time injuries where the worker should be able to return to work duties within thirty days.

Should the employer use a super conservative doctor, let's say Dr. Nuthinwrong, so you can get every worker back within a week or two? For sprains, a short rest period is fine, and usually they can return to work in a month. But for serious sprains or fractures, more time is required. If you are using Dr. Nuthinwrong and he releases the worker way too soon, which we see all the time, he won't feel able to go back to work, and without his salary or his temporary disability indemnity, he will seek an attorney. The attorney will immediately change treating doctors to Dr. Lotswrong, and his client will start receiving state disability.

Maybe a better approach would be to use a doctor who honestly feels each injured worker is different and who will give him more time off work to recover. That way, you won't force a case into litigation. And with an honest doctor, there is no reason for him to even want to obtain an attorney because he will feel he is being listened to by the doctor and his employer.

Also, from the employer's point of view, litigation increases all benefits to be received by the injured worker, reserves are consequently higher, morale is lower and the employer's premium is sure to rise.

Now from the employee's point of view. I hear this frequently, "I have been offered a job, do you think I should take it or will that hurt my case?"

I always answer the same way: "If you can work, work!" If you have a broken left ankle and cannot stand on it for more than five minutes, and the job is sitting all the time, then by all means, take the job. Money from working is more than money from temporary disability indemnity ("TD") anyway. The TD rate is basically 2/3 of your weekly wages so you will most always make 1 ￯﾿ﾂ￯ﾾﾽ times as much money working as you make on TD. If you are making $600 per week at your job, your TD rate is going to be about $400, so you will make $200 more per week working than being on TD.

If you have a broken ankle and the job offered requires you to be on your feet eight hours per day, then maybe you might not want to take it if it is going to hurt you. You decide what your limits are and whether or not the work will hurt you. You don't want the extra $200 per week if it means you suffer another injury though.

If you do work, make sure you tell your claims examiner so he can get that information into the claim file. But working will not hurt your case so long as you are not working beyond your restrictions.

Contributed by John W. Miller, Esq. You can reach him at (805) 497-0857, or by e-mail at john@m-associates.com