The worker has capacity. Why is the return to work still failing?

Start with the work, not the label

Broad duties such as administration, light duties or modified work can mean very different things to different people.

A stronger plan describes the actual tasks, including:

• lifting, carrying, reaching or repetitive movements;
• sitting, standing and walking requirements;
• hours, shifts and breaks;
• cognitive or interpersonal demands;
• productivity expectations;
• the person supervising the work; and
• what happens if symptoms or capacity change.

The aim is not to design work around assumptions about the injury. It is to give the worker, supervisor and treating practitioner enough accurate workplace information to assess whether the proposed duties match the certified capacity.

Check whether the plan survives contact with the workplace

A suitable-duties plan can look reasonable on paper and still fail operationally.

Common problems include:

• a supervisor adding normal duties when the team becomes busy;
• different supervisors interpreting the restrictions differently;
• the worker being moved between locations without the plan following them;
• productivity expectations remaining unchanged despite reduced hours or duties; and
• nobody being clearly responsible for reviewing the arrangement.

These are factors the employer can control. Correcting them often matters more than producing another version of the same plan.

Separate medical questions from workplace decisions

The treating practitioner determines medical capacity. The employer determines how work can be organised within that capacity.

If the certificate is too broad to assess a proposed duty, the answer is not to pressure the practitioner for a preferred outcome. Provide concise information about the role and proposed duties, then seek clarification through the appropriate process.

Useful questions focus on function. For example:

• Is the proposed duration of the task consistent with the current restrictions?
• Are the planned breaks sufficient?
• Is a graded increase in hours appropriate for review?
• Are there specific movements or demands that should be excluded?

The employer should avoid asking the practitioner to make operational decisions without being given the relevant workplace information.

Give the next decision an owner

Claims drift when actions are discussed but not owned.

For each open issue, record:

• the decision or action required;
• who owns it;
• the evidence needed;
• the due date; and
• the trigger for escalation.

This makes it easier to distinguish a genuine external delay from an action the employer could have completed earlier.

When a broader reset is needed

A focused claim review may be appropriate when:

• several suitable-duties attempts have failed;
• the parties are working from different versions of events;
• capacity has remained unchanged without a clear explanation or next step;
• insurer, provider and workplace actions are not coordinated; or
• management is spending significant time on the claim without reaching decisions.

The purpose of a reset is not to blame a party or promise claim closure. It is to establish the verified position, identify the barriers, separate controllable factors from matters the employer can only influence, and agree the next 90 days of action.

What employers should take away

Partial capacity is only the starting point. Sustainable recovery at work depends on the quality of the duty design, the consistency of workplace execution, the information available to decision-makers and clear ownership of the next action.

If a claim is consuming management attention but still lacks a credible pathway forward, Anchor Risk can independently review the current position and develop a prioritised action plan.