Recently, there has been a strong push for an “early and safe return to work” for individuals recovering from occupational stress injuries. However, it’s essential that the drive to achieve return to work outcomes does not come at the cost of mental wellness. To achieve a safe and sustainable return to work, we must rely not only on the expertise of treating healthcare professionals but also actively involve the injured worker in the process. A recent case perfectly illustrates this point.
A 36-year-old police officer was diagnosed with PTSD. Following his injury, his psychologist recommended a permanent restriction from any “police-related duties.” Determined to find a meaningful alternative within his psychological limitations, he researched other occupations. In response, his employer offered him a permanent accommodation as a Special Constable in Court Services. The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) approved this position, considering it safe and suitable because it did not require him to wear a police uniform, allowed him to work alongside another Special Constable, and exempted him from responding to emergencies. But was this really a position that did not involve “police-related duties”?
On paper, this accommodation seemed reasonable. However, the WSIB failed to thoroughly assess the role and the unpredictable nature of the court environment. During their review, the Panel listened to the officer’s concerns about the position and why he felt it was unsafe and unsuitable for him. They found his testimony credible. They also placed significant weight on the medical reports from the treating psychologist, who cautioned the worker would likely decompensate if exposed to “positions requiring any type of emergency response involving the public or which consists of a significantly high level of stress”.
While this decision was a positive outcome for my client, it resulted in his life being effectively on hold for three years.
Turning down a modified job offer from an employer can be scary, especially when loss of earnings benefits are at stake. However, no injured worker should have to risk engaging in work that could lead to a regression in their mental health. Prioritizing genuine recovery and safety ensures better long-term outcomes for both the worker and the accident employer. You can read the full decision here.