A recent Form 24 decision involving an alleged refusal of suitable employment highlights a critical principle for defense counsel: a strong, well-documented return-to-work record increases the likelihood of success—even when the factual landscape shifts after the initial offer.

The plaintiff sustained a compensable right shoulder injury, underwent surgery, and was released by the authorized treating physician to light-duty work with a 15-pound lifting restriction and no commercial driving. Within days, the defendants identified two full-time transitional positions—Service Manager and Precision Ag Call Center Technician—both of which were reviewed and expressly approved by the treating physician. On March 4, 2026, the defendants extended a written offer allowing the plaintiff to choose between the positions, with a return-to-work date of March 9, 2026. The record shows that the plaintiff did not return to work, did not raise contemporaneous, medically supported objections, and did not meaningfully engage with the defendants regarding the offer for several weeks.

The plaintiff opposed the Form 24 initially, but at the April 15 hearing, the plaintiff asserted a willingness to return to work and indicated an intent to return on April 20. However, after more than a month without response or a return to work, the employer had already filled or begun filling the positions to meet business needs. The defendants communicated these developments to both the plaintiff and the Commission when they became aware of them after the April 15 informal hearing.

The Commission approved the application. Upon plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, plaintiff argued the positions were “unavailable” at the time of the Commission’s April 22, 2026 Order, and thus he could not have unjustifiably refused them. The Commission rejected the plaintiff’s argument, holding that the relevant inquiry was whether suitable employment was offered and unjustifiably refused at the time of the offer—not whether the position remained open indefinitely or when plaintiff decided to accept it. The Commission emphasized that the positions were within the plaintiff’s restrictions, approved by the treating physician, and available when offered, and that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence demonstrating that the work was unsuitable or that the refusal was justified. The plaintiff’s acceptance after over six weeks of silence —and the subsequent unavailability of the positions due to delay—did not overcome the earlier refusal. The Commission denied reconsideration and left the suspension in place.

From a defense perspective, this decision highlights several practical keys to Form 24 success in refusal-of-suitable-employment cases. Defense counsel should obtain specific physician approval of the actual job duties, issue a clear written offer with a defined start date, and document all follow-up demonstrating a lack of response or failure to return to work. Equally important is preserving evidence that the position was available at the time it was offered—even if it is later filled—so the focus remains on the plaintiff’s response (or lack thereof) when the offer was made, rather than on subsequent arguments about job availability.

Conclusion: Defense success in Form 24 cases often depends less on responding to the plaintiff’s specific arguments and more on establishing a clear, well-developed record early in the case. When the file demonstrates suitable employment, a documented lack of engagement, and no medical justification for refusal, the Commission is more likely to find that the plaintiff unjustifiably refused suitable employment.