Word of the Day: Return

Merriam-Webster defines return as "to restore to a former or to a normal state."

That's the promise we make when we say we're going to return someone to work or return them to wellness.  It's a tall order.  Telling someone you're going to return them to a former state is almost like telling someone to get the wrinkles out of a piece of balled-up aluminum foil.  Even with extreme measures, the likelihood of getting a smooth Hershey Kiss wrapper out of a pea-sized wad is nearly impossible.  I am in no way saying injured workers are like balled up scraps of aluminum -- but we cannot promise everyone the health and ability they may have experienced pre-injury.  Even without an injury my body has aged 24 hours more than it was the same time yesterday.  In the past 24 hour hours deterioration has occurred, plates of the earth's lithosphere have shifted ever so slightly, and maybe an ice cap has melted ever so slightly more today than yesterday. It is very unlikely, if not improbable that we'd be able to easily eliminate the effects of aging, prevent the earth's plates from shifting or restore the polar ice caps. 

The workers' compensation laws are designed to indemnify an injured worker, or to "make them whole."

For a larger proportion of work injuries, that’s likely the case -- the cut finger that doesn't leave a scar, the bee sting, the ankle sprain that has resolved.  We can't make the same promise for many, more severe injuries that require surgery, produce scars, or leave injured workers with permanent restrictions.  The law tries to indemnify injured workers for their loss of income, medical treatment and sometimes permanent impairment.  But the injured worker will never be the same as they were pre-injury -- it's impossible for me to be the same as I was a week ago.  The point is -- we cannot stop change, nor can we go back and prevent the future from happening.  That is, unless of course you're Marty McFly.

It sounds as if this goes against all that we promise -- Return to Wellness?

The Return to Wellness promise is alive and well.  I can't tell you that we can return everyone.  These cases demand a frank and honest discussion about what the injured worker's future looks like.  When there are likely permanent restrictions or impairment, how do we manage that going forward?  I'm not talking about mitigating losses, I'm talking about reconciling who you were before an injury occurred and who you are going to be in the future.  For that logger who is not going back into the woods, it can be devastating.  For the mason who has always taken great pride in their skilled work, it's like losing part of your identity. 

As soon as we recognize that this may be the outcome, the sooner we must discuss what the future looks like for that injured worker.  Yes, it may not involve chopping down trees or building stone walls, but it has to mean something else.   This is reality, albeit sometimes a harsh one.  Life goes on after the work injury and it goes on after the claims settlement.  Medical providers can only take an injured worker so far and they can't, unfortunately and in most cases, return you to where they were before the injury occurred.  All the more reason to work to get an injured worker the best possible outcome -- this is going to be their life and their future long after the claim closes.  We may be stepping out of the realm of statutory benefits, but we can never lose sight of the fact that these are peoples' lives that are impacted by work injuries.  We must do all that we can to minimize that impact.

 

References:

Return. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2014, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/return

One more reason to offer RTW: Stop giving injured workers a bad rap

So much for the 80/20 rule.

According to a study conducted by Harris Poll on behalf of Summit Pharmacy, Inc., 2 out of 5 Americans believe that people who are collecting workers' compensation benefit don't want to work.  Not surprisingly, roughly 35% of respondents agreed that "You need a PhD to complete all the necessary paperwork associated with a workers' compensation claim."  That last question was a bit leading, and a tad dramatic for my liking, but I digress.

You can read more about the survey here.

While the survey may not be free of bias, I think there are some opportunities for further discussion.  The survey fails to consider whether or not the employer offered modified work to the injured worker.  If someone is offered suitable work and refuses it, that's a different story.  If the employer has done nothing to offer an injured worker modified duty, or if the injured worker remains totally disabled, then they are likely justified in remaining out of work.  I understand I'm arguing against a stereotype, but the stigma and stereotypes cannot be ignored.

In previous posts, I've written about injured workers who start to feel that they have to prove how disabled they are to justify their injury to people.  In an environment where a good portion of the American population thinks injured workers are just lazy, I can't imagine that makes anyone feel too good about being out of work.  It may even lead to them citing limitations and disabilities to demonstrate that they're not "faking" their injury. 

Conversely, when an injured worker is in a supported environment where they can trust that people surrounding them (including their employer and coworkers) believe their injury occurred and the subsequent pain is real, I'd venture to guess that they'd be less likely to point to their inabilities as they have nothing to "prove."

One thing we can do to fight this stigma (aside from preventing injuries from happening in the first place), is to offer modified duty to injured workers.  If they unjustifiably refuse the work, i.e., they really don't "want to work," then their benefits may be suspended and everyone can loosely conclude that they really don't want to work.  I'd like to see a survey that focuses on that.

We can also do a better job of helping injured workers fill out claim paperwork.  It may not require a PhD, but it is filled with jargon and legalese that those outside the WC industry have a difficult time understanding. A word of advice -- if you know the form you're about to mail out causes outrage or panic in injured workers -- give them a head's up that it's coming and what it means.  The wording on the forms typically makes it sound worse than it really is.