Return-to-Work: A Fabulous Business Strategy

Better RTW

When most people hear the phrase “return-to-work,” they picture the day an injured employee walks back through the front door. The paperwork has been completed. Restrictions have been identified. A modified job has been assigned. Case closed…except it isn’t.

Return-to-work is so much more than we give it credit for and how we look at workers’ compensation. Many employers view return-to-work as a date on a calendar or a form to complete or a box to check. This milestone during the workers’ compensation process is one of the most significant business strategies an organization can develop because it affects people, productivity, culture, finances, and outcomes all at once. Powerful from a financial perspective as well as a human capital standpoint.

Organizations with the strongest workers’ compensation programs have stronger systems, not necessarily fewer injuries. Strong programs in organizations communicate more consistently and have a plan before an injury ever occurs. Leaders of these organizations recognize that every claim deserves attention, even though not every claim requires the same level of intervention. The distinction of intention for attention can change everything in the workers’ compensation process.

One of my favorite questions to ask organizations is simple: Do you have a return-to-work program, or do you simply return people to work? There is a difference.

A true return-to-work program begins long before anyone gets hurt. Conversations and planning have previously occurred including leadership expectations, supervisor training, job analyses, communication plans, transitional duty opportunities, and relationships built on trust. When those pieces already exist, everyone knows their role when an injury occurs. The process feels organized rather than reactive and can flow quite smoothly.

Without a foundation, organizations often spend valuable time trying to create solutions during the middle of a crisis. Reactive planning rarely produces the best outcome.

One concept I encourage organizations to think about is consistency. Consistency creates confidence. Confidence reduces uncertainty. Reduced uncertainty often leads to better decision-making from everyone involved. Give yourself a pulse check and ask yourself the following questions:

• Does every injured worker receive the same initial communication?
• Are supervisors following the same reporting process every time?
• Is modified duty discussed early instead of weeks later?
• Are medical providers receiving accurate job descriptions?
• Are employees hearing the same message regardless of which supervisor they report to?

The opposite can also be true.

When communication changes from claim to claim or supervisor to supervisor, uncertainty begins to grow. People fill information gaps with assumptions. Rumors develop and narratives surface without objective facts to support. Trust begins to erode. Small problems suddenly become much larger simply because expectations were never clearly established.

The strongest return-to-work programs remove as much uncertainty as possible, which requires preparation. Not every claim deserves the same amount of resources. If eighty percent of your claims resolve with minimal intervention, why would you dedicate the same investigative resources, management time, and financial investment to every single file?

When looking at your return-to-work program, the goal is to build a process that helps identify which claims deserve additional attention. Where do you want to spend your time? Where should you invest your resources? Where will additional effort improve outcomes? This is where workers’ compensation and human capital development meet business strategy.

Investigations should never become routine simply because a claim exists. This tends to be the first ‘target’ amplified when a workers’ compensation claim is filed. Organizations default to the negative instead of being intentional with investments designed to answer meaningful questions. Questions to consider when a workers’ compensation claim is filed within your organization:

• What information is still missing?
• What barriers are preventing recovery?
• What facts have been verified?
• What assumptions are influencing decisions?
• Can accommodations be expanded?
• Has every reasonable return-to-work opportunity been explored?

Good investigations do not exist to prove someone wrong. Please reread this sentence because it will save you money. Remember that investigations exist to provide a clearer picture so better decisions can be made. This is not a personal attack on an employee who sustained or filed a workers’ compensation claim.

That same philosophy applies to accommodations. Too often organizations stop after identifying one modified-duty position. Accommodations tend to be shut down quickly after a quick ask has been turned down by a supervisor who is ‘busy’ and is not thinking outside the box. What can organizations do? Ask a different question. What else could we do? Could hours be adjusted? Could equipment be modified? Could temporary tasks be reassigned? Could remote work be appropriate? Could physical demands be reduced while maintaining meaningful work?

Return to work should not become an all-or-nothing conversation. We want to rethink what IS possible versus the limitations of what cannot be done. Flexibility creates opportunities that rigid thinking never discovers when we shift the lens to what is possible.

Another area to focus attention is documentation. Objective documentation protects everyone. Notice I said objective and this is important. Not emotional, not judgmental. Objective. Write what happened. Document what was observed without opinion or personal narrative. Record conversations accurately. Capture timelines with specific numbers (crazy I know). Identify barriers that could be photographed or red tape that exists in the process. Describe actions taken and by whom. These are articulable facts and facts reduce disagreement because they are observable rather than emotional.

And then we have the area employers spend a lot of time focusing on when the words workers’ compensation come to surface: FRAUD. Fraud certainly exists; however, allow this to be a friendly reminder suspicion alone is not fraud, and that distinction matters. A framework to help distinguish potential fraud is known as MILK. M stands for Material. The information must matter. I stands for Intentionality. Mistakes happen. Fraud requires intent. L stands for Lie. There must be a false representation. K stands for Knowledge. The individual knowingly made that false representation. If you are missing one of those elements, remain focused on gathering facts rather than making conclusions.

Surveillance should be viewed through that same lens. If activities occur in public where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, those observations may become part of an investigation when appropriate. Please remember the goal is not ‘GOTCHA’ where we catch someone versus to understand what is actually happening. Seek to understand what is transpiring beneath the layers as there tends to me more to the story than what we see from a surface level, first glance.

Perhaps the most overlooked element of return to work is leadership. Every supervisor influences recovery whether they realize it or not and this has been depicted in a few studies of supervisor impact on lost-time workers’ compensation claims. The direct leader of an injured worker is an imperative component to how the claim will go, the belonging the employee will feel throughout the process, and will influence the recovery process. The first phone call matters. (Your supervisors call the employee after the injury, right? Many don’t so start there.) The first conversation after the injury matters. (Tone, questioning, empathy…the basics we learned in kindergarten.) The tone of every email or letter matters. The willingness to listen matters. People remember how they were treated during difficult moments long after they forget the details of the paperwork which shapes organizational culture more than many leaders realize.

Employees talk. And they watch. They observe how injured coworkers are treated. Employees notice whether leaders genuinely care or simply move people through a process. Observations influence future reporting, trust, engagement, and even retention. At the end of the day, return to work involves returning someone to purpose, far beyond simply returning someone to a job.

Work provides routine, identity, connection, confidence, financial stability, and social interaction. Helping someone safely re-engage with meaningful work benefits the employee, the employer, coworkers, and the entire organization. So… when can you come back to work? The better question to be asking yourself is What kind of system have we built that helps people successfully return? Why? Organizations that consistently produce the best outcomes are rarely the ones reacting faster but the ones who made a communicated plan before the injury even happened.

Remember:

• Return to work is a business strategy, not a single event.
• Consistency in communication and processes reduces uncertainty and improves outcomes.
• Focus investigative resources where they create the greatest value.
• Explore multiple accommodation options instead of settling for the first solution.
• Document objective facts, not opinions.
• Remember the MILK framework before assuming fraud.
• Leadership behaviors during recovery influence organizational culture long after the claim closes.

To get you started --- A Return-to-Work Strategy Checklist:

☐ Do we have a documented return-to-work program?

☐ Are supervisors trained on injury response and communication?

☐ Are modified-duty opportunities identified before injuries occur?

☐ Are our communication processes consistent across every claim?

☐ Do we document objective facts rather than assumptions?

☐ Are investigative resources focused where they provide the greatest value?

☐ Have we explored every reasonable accommodation?

☐ Are we measuring the effectiveness of our return-to-work efforts over time?

Share This Article: