Legal Requirements for a Light Duty Job Offer

By Vincci W. Lam, Attorney at Law

No one wants a work injury to occur, but when it happens, the goal of the workers’ compensation system is to facilitate appropriate treatment and then bring workers back to suitable and gainful employment as efficiently as possible. Oftentimes, an employer can facilitate alternative/light duty work as a means of keeping the worker actively engaged in the work place, while also contributing to the employer’s business interests during the pendency of a work injury claim.

There are strict and rigid requirements for a legally valid light duty job offer under the Oregon Rules and Statutes. See OAR 436-060-0030(3).

OAR 436-060-0030(3) requires the following procedures for a valid light duty job offer:

1. A light duty job description must be forwarded to the attending physician, describing the tasks to be performed and the location of the light duty work. The attending physician must then approve the light duty job in writing, with a specific statement that the worker is capable of a commute to the light duty job.
2. This written approval by the attending physician is then followed by a light duty job offer letter sent from the employer to the worker. The light duty job offer letter must contain specific information and boilerplate language about the worker’s rights. Please see the link below for a sample light duty job offer letter. This is a sample only and must be tailored to your specific claim circumstances.

The above requirements must be strictly followed, in order for the employer/insurer to reduce or end temporary disability benefits if a worker does not perform the light duty work. As always, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at Reinisch Wilson P.C. with any questions.

Click Here for a Sample Light Duty Job Offer

(Note: there is case law providing that, if a worker has voluntarily returned to light duty work, and succeeded in performing that light duty work for a duration, this is “proof” that the worker is capable of the light duty, such that the above requirements are not needed. See SAIF v. Vivanco, 216 Or App 210 (2007). However, this Vivanco inquiry is very fact specific, such that the above light duty letter should be undertaken if you wish to avoid any debate over whether the requirements of Vivanco were met.)