Employers and employers often question the wounded worker’s entitlement to a salary or insurance coverage for uninsured services, so 1000 dollars are expended on a regular basis, recruiting medical practitioners, qualified consultants so attorneys, just to ensure that either the person is not hurt as he claims; his medical condition is unreasonable; he will operate in the face of his injuries; Visit lawyers.
The goal of returning the injured worker to productive employment is given only lip service; our method is at best incompatible and at worst counterproductive in the absence of talking to the 1000’s of people whose incidents prevent them from returning to the kind of work they normally perform, and in the absence of sufficient guidance, funding or other assistance in re-education or retraining in an appropriate skill to authenticate. There’s the potential for huge gains in saved money, renewed professions and improved competitiveness in the economy. An injured worker, for example, who can no longer lift or carry heavy objects, who works for an employer who has no “light duty” work available, is directed to find and accept other jobs.
Such new jobs are usually low-wage, entry-level roles where the injured worker has little expertise and little desire. But the only legal issue that matters is the physical ability of the workers to do the new job-not its long-term future, insurance availability or other benefits, or even the hours or place of work. The midnight desk clerk role at the nearby hotel, or cashier role at a gas station, are frequent favorites sought among insurer-hired technical “experts” trying to assist the disabled person back into the workplace, and a lot of time and money is expended ensuring such positions are suitable. There is interest in that job, but it is far from ideal for many disabled employees, in any way other than physical capacity.
How far more wise will it be to divert the resources expended on justifying the existence of low-wage employment, in order to justify eliminating workers ‘ comp coverage, to compensate for re-education in a different sector through receiving a degree from a nearby community college associate? A: amazingly smarter. Why isn’t it happening? Because the law does not impose any obligation on insurers or employers to either assess, retrain or re-educate injured workers. An insurer will certainly pay $10,000 to verify a low-wage occupation’s suitability: it needs a medical expert to show physical ability, a vocational expert to show job availability, and a lawyer to provide evidence of both. What’d cost the same $10,000? The degree of an associate is likely.