Clear Path Employer Services
We often hear from new clients that modified work was not offered to an injured employee because all they received in terms of documentation was a frustratingly standard (and useless) doctor’s note that simply stated “off for two weeks.” Many employers believe that a medical professional’s word is law when it comes to WSIB claims, so when they are provided with such a note they assume doctor’s orders must be followed. However, what many employers fail to understand is that the difference between a lost time and no lost time claim often lies in the suitability of modified work, despite the existence of a “two weeks off” doctor’s note.
We recently consulted on a claim where a worker lost the tip of his middle finger after accidentally crushing it in a machine. The worker immediately sought medical attention and provided his employer with a surgeon’s note that stated the worker should remain off duties until he could be reassessed by the surgeon a week later. The employer was not provided with limitations or restrictions for the worker (typically found in a Functional Abilities Form) and because of the severity of the accident, assumed that they were looking at a costly lost time claim. However, we instructed the employer to immediately offer the worker suitable modified work at modified hours, despite the surgeon’s note.
WSIB policy is clear when it states that suitable work means “post-injury work that is safe, productive, consistent with the worker’s functional abilities, and that, to the extent possible, restores the worker’s pre-injury earnings.”
This is a little trickier to answer, but sometimes the answer lies in common sense. If a worker lost the tip of his finger he likely will not be able to use that hand and will likely have stitches. Standard restrictions for an injury such as this suggests that the worker should refrain from repetitive movement or use of the hand and should remain in a clean environment until the stitches are removed to avoid infection.
Our client therefore offered the worker modified work at reduced hours both verbally and in writing in the form of a RTW Plan. The worker however rejected the modified work and stated he wished to follow his surgeon’s recommendations.
We submitted an objection letter along with the Form 7 and stated that loss of earnings should not be allowed in the claim as the employer offered modified work to the Employee and requested that it be reviewed for suitability. The Eligibility Adjudicator reviewed the information and allowed the claim for health care benefits only and stated she was unable to support loss of earnings as the worker was offered modified duties. She transferred the claim to a case manager however to rule on the suitability of modified work. The case manager requested the surgeon’s report in order to obtain more fulsome information about the worker’s functional abilities and restrictions. As one can imagine, this information takes time to obtain.
We recommended that the employer remain in regular contact with the worker and to encourage him to participate in RTW planning in order to mitigate his/her potential financial loss. The worker did eventually participate in the RTW planning and the employer, worker and union agreed on a suitable RTW schedule.
The case manager eventually ruled that the description of the original modified work listed in the RTW Plan was consistent with the functional abilities provided by the surgeon’s report. She further stated that the loss of earnings the worker experienced when he remained off work based on the surgeon’s recommendations were therefore not in order.
The Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act violence and harassment prevention provisions (Bill 168) require an employer to take all reasonable precautions in the circumstances for the protection of all employees if a domestic violence situation is likely to expose a worker to physical injury in the workplace and the employer becomes aware or ought reasonably to be aware of the situation.
But what does that imply? The law states the requirement but provides little guidance on what employers need to do to prevent domestic violence from spilling into the workplace. In addition, many employers are not comfortable addressing a situation of such a personal nature. It is not an easy task to complete and might never be.
Marie-Yosie Saint-Cyr, LL.B. Managing Editor
The Ontario Occupational Health and safety Act violence and harassment prevention provisions (Bill 168) require employers to provide information, including personal information, about a person with a history of violent behaviour if:
Marie-Yosie Saint-Cyr, LL.B. Managing Editor
Ontario’s upcoming occupational health and safety violence and harassment rules require that employers implement violence and harassment prevention policies. Manitoba and Saskatchewan also require OHS policies for both workplace hazards. When drafting or updating your violence/harassment policies to meet legal OHS requirements (e.g., Ontario’s Bill 168), are you creating individual policies or integrating your policies? That was the question asked in the most recent HRinfodesk poll. According to the results of the poll, out of 155 responses, 84 (~54%) respondents intend to comply to the letter of the law, while 71 (~46%) respondents have taken another approach by integrating both policies into one.
Marie-Yosie Saint-Cyr, LL.B. Managing Editor