A Fair Approach to Return-to-Work Obligations
After being injured at work, Kai was receiving weekly payments while recovering. In March, Kai’s employment ended.
Soon after, the insurer issued a formal warning. They said Kai needed to find a new job by April and that weekly payments might stop if this did not happen. The insurer believed Kai had caused their own job loss.
Kai was concerned. Finding a job quickly while still injured felt unrealistic.
The law allows insurers to issue warnings, but they must clearly explain what the worker needs to do. In this case, the letter did not do that. It also required Kai to secure a job by a set date, which is not how the law works.
Since Kai could not return to their old job, the real obligation was to make reasonable efforts to find work — not guarantee a job straight away.
The IRO’s Service
Kai contacted the Independent Review Office (IRO).
The IRO found that:
- The warning did not clearly explain what Kai needed to do
- The deadline to get a job was not appropriate
- The focus should be on reasonable efforts, not immediate employment
The IRO raised these issues with the insurer.
How the IRO provided support
The Outcome
After considering the IRO’s feedback, the insurer agreed to change its approach.
They confirmed that:
- Weekly payments would continue
- Kai would receive support from a rehabilitation provider
- The focus would be on finding suitable work over time
This allowed Kai to continue recovering without added financial stress.
Why this matters
Weekly payments help injured workers cover basic living costs. If payments stop unfairly, it can cause serious hardship.
How we've helped
Real stories from people we've supported through complaints and legal help. View all Client Stories.
