Tribunal finds worker reasonably relied on medical advice as inconsistent job details undermined return-to-work plan
An employer’s push to cut off wage-loss benefits after a worker declined modified duties has failed, after a tribunal found the job offer too unclear and not aligned with medical advice.
On May 7, 2026, Vice Chair Deborah Ling of the British Columbia Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal ruled that the worker remained entitled to temporary wage-loss benefits beyond March 27, 2025. The employer had argued that benefits should be reduced after the worker declined a March 2025 offer of modified work consisting of online training.
A return-to-work plan under scrutiny
The worker, a truck driver, suffered a left inguinal hernia in April 2024 and had not worked since. Medical evidence from treating physicians consistently advised that the worker was unfit for work while awaiting surgery, including sedentary duties.
In March 2025, the employer offered modified duties involving online e-learning at full-time hours. The worker raised concerns about prolonged sitting, pain, sleep disruption, and the impact of medication on concentration, and provided medical notes recommending remaining off work.
The employer maintained that the duties were flexible, self-paced, and could be completed with breaks. It also pointed to other information it said raised questions about the worker’s capacity, including a March 2025 roadside driving prohibition and its belief that the worker had outside driving activity. The worker denied working after the injury, and the tribunal ultimately preferred that evidence.
Ambiguity in duties proves decisive
The tribunal closely examined whether the modified duties met the definition of “suitable work,” which must be safe, productive, and consistent with the worker’s functional abilities and medical restrictions.
Vice Chair Ling identified multiple gaps in how the duties were described. The offer did not clearly define whether the work was to be performed at home or in the employer’s office, set inconsistent schedules ranging from five eight‑hour days to potential twelve‑hour shifts, and lacked detail about daily productivity expectations or how course work related to the worker’s role.
“I am not satisfied that the ambiguities were resolved prior to March 27, 2025,” the tribunal wrote.
The decision also found limited clarity on whether the work was meaningfully productive and whether sufficient information had been provided for the worker or physician to assess suitability.
Medical evidence outweighs employer assumptions
The central question was whether the worker’s refusal was unreasonable. The tribunal emphasized that workers may rely on medical advice, particularly where job duties are not clearly defined. “I find that it was reasonable for the worker to rely on the recommendation of Dr. Mussell that he remain off work until his hernia surgery,” the decision states.
The tribunal gave significant weight to medical opinions indicating the worker’s pain, sleep disruption, and limitations prevented even sedentary work. It also found that the employer’s observations and external evidence, including the roadside prohibition, did not establish that the worker could safely perform the proposed duties.
Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the refusal did not justify reducing benefits. “I am not satisfied that the worker’s temporary wage-loss benefits should be reduced,” the decision concludes. The employer’s appeal was denied, and the earlier Review Division decision was confirmed, leaving the worker entitled to temporary wage-loss benefits on the basis of total disability beyond March 27, 2025.
