Offering Light Duty Work Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-240: A Procedural Tool with Practical Restraints
By: Jimmy Mehrhof
Offering light duty work while a claimant receives temporary total disability (TTD) benefits is one of the few tools available to employers and insurers to mitigate TTD exposure in Georgia. O.C.G.A. § 34-9-240 and Board Rule 240 permit and provide specific instructions for an employer/insurer to offer suitable light duty work to a claimant receiving TTD benefits. The purpose of the process is to allow an employer to offer work the authorized treating physician (ATP) deemed suitable for the assigned restrictions and provide the employee a chance to return to work and earn money. The employer/insurer also potentially benefits from the opportunity to have the claimant back at work and suspend TTD benefits based either on an actual return to work or an unjustified refusal to perform the light duty position. The question is whether this process is actually worth undertaking given the effort involved in the process versus the likelihood of a successful and lasting return to work (and suspension of TTD benefits).
To initiate the WC-240 job offer process, an employer will either complete a WC-240(a) Job Description or a clearly worded and detailed job description and submit this document to the ATP1 for consideration. Two important points to this initial step: (1) the ATP must have examined the claimant within 60 days of the claimant’s scheduled return to work; and (2) the employer/insurer must submit the job description to the claimant and, if represented, the claimant’s attorney, at the same time as the submission to the ATP.
Assuming the ATP “approves” the WC-240(a) Job Description, the employer must then formally offer the position to the claimant by completing and serving a WC-240 Notice to Employee of Offer of Suitable Employment along with the WC-240(a) Job Description signed by the ATP. This form provides the claimant with the details related to start date and time, work location and other details related to the offered position. The employer must serve the completed WC-240 and executed WC-240a forms on the claimant and counsel at least 10 days before the start date listed on the WC-240 form.
If the claimant refuses or otherwise fails to report to the approved job and, assuming the employer/insurer meticulously followed all of the steps above, the employer/insurer may suspend TTD benefits by filing a WC-2 Notice of Payment/Suspension of Benefits (see Section “C”, box 6 of WC-2 form).
If the claimant reports to work as scheduled, Georgia law requires the claimant attempt the job for a minimum of eight cumulative hours or one full scheduled workday, whichever is greater. The failure to meet this threshold absolves the employer/insurer of the requirement to recommence TTD benefits immediately. In short, if the claimant fails to reach the threshold, the employer may treat the conduct as an unjustified refusal and maintain the suspension of TTD benefits.
However, if the claimant works the minimum period but ceases work before completing 15 scheduled workdays, the employer must immediately reinstate TTD benefits or risk waiving the defense based on the “suitability” of the employment. Only in cases where the claimant stops working after successfully performing 15 scheduled work days does the burden shift to the claimant to prove a change in condition for the worse in order to secure recommencement of TTD benefits.
Disputes often arise about whether the job was suitable or whether the claimant’s refusal was justified. In such circumstances, the offended party must file a WC-14 Request for Hearing to secure an award from an administrative law judge.
For those familiar with this process, it often serves as a particularly frustrating endeavor. After jumping through all of the procedural hoops, which often involve a great deal of time and effort to accomplish, a claimant need only work a few days (at most) before conveying the inability to continue working and forcing recommencement of TTD. Moreover, even minor deviations2 can invalidate the WC-240 process entirely. This strict-compliance standard creates substantial risk for employers because a technical error can defeat the suspension of benefits regardless of whether the job was genuinely appropriate.
In addition, a claimant’s burden to attempt the job is extremely limited. Because the statute requires only eight hours or one workday for a valid attempt, a claimant can appear for a single shift and then assert the work is intolerable and force the employer/insurer to either litigate the issue or restart the entire process again. Thus, although the WC-240 process is ostensibly designed to facilitate a physically capable claimant’s return to work, in practice, it contains significant procedural and practical limitations which often undermine its utility.
At trial, it can be difficult to prove whether a claimant has put forth a good-faith effort in working the approved light duty job.3 In fact, case law has allowed the claimant’s testimony alone to serve as justification for an alleged inability to work the approved light duty job. Further, recent case law from the Georgia Court of Appeals raised further concerns regarding the effectiveness and practicality of the WC-240 process by finding, “there is no requirement that an employee’s refusal to return to work correlates to the work injury in order for the employee to be justified in refusing under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-240.”4
These structural realities significantly reduce the value of engaging in the WC-240 process when considering the time and administrative effort involved versus the likelihood of a successful return to work and protracted litigation. Although the best hope for improved effectiveness of process is likely through the legislature, the WC-240 process can still serve as an effective means of offering those motivated to return to work with the opportunity to do so or serve as a useful strategic tool, particularly when implemented as soon as possible following a work accident or the ATP’s assignment of light duty restrictions. In short, given the limited tools available to employers and insurers to mitigate exposure in Georgia workers’ compensation claims, we should always explore and, if possible, implement all available appropriate and practical means to secure our desired ends despite the hurdles involved.
1 One must remember to ensure the recipient of the job description is, in fact, the ATP.
2 Such as physician approval obtained outside the sixty-day window, incomplete job descriptions or approval from someone other than the authorized treating physician.
3 Young v. Columbus Consol Gov’t, 263 Ga. 172 (1993) (The court held that a trial court, when sitting as a reviewing body, is bound by the "any evidence" standard of review and is not authorized to substitute itself as a fact-finding body. The testimony of the employee sufficiently establishes his incapacity to perform the light-duty job procured for him by the employer).
4 Taylor v. Argos, USA, 375 Ga. App. 49 (2025) (referencing City of Adel v. Wise, 261 Ga. 53, which provided examples of justifiable refusals of work, including: a nurse who refuses a typing job because she lacks the skills to perform it, a refusal to accept work which requires relocation from the employee’s home, an employee’s refusal of work in an area of a plant with no air conditioning and an incarcerated employee’s refusal of suitable work being deemed justified up until his adjudication of guilt due to his/her lack of capacity to accept the offer).
Attorney Contact Info
Jimmy Mehrhof
james.mehrhof@swiftcurrie.com
404.888.6274
