A few questions for the doctors here...

Unfortunately, everyone tends to wash their hands of these situations. An employer can always hide behind the excuse that there isn't any lighter work available. I guess the real question is whether this woman officially—in writing—requested a reassignment to less strenuous duties and provided them with a copy of her doctor's recommendation. If she did, the employer basically has two choices: either find her a role that fits her physical limitations or issue a layoff due to business necessity, which would include a severance package. If she’s been in the workforce for 50 years, she might be able to transition to unemployment benefits until she hits retirement age. It’s not exactly an ideal scenario, but maybe it's better than risking a permanent decline in her health.
What about the union? In larger corporations, the union usually has a pretty formidable legal department that can handle this kind of thing. It’s a complete circus if she's working for a small outfit of only ten people.

I will try to be of assistance.

There exists a job description protocol that determines whether certain tasks can or cannot be performed alongside a specific illness.
For instance, labeling a task as "heavy" is far too vague... one must distinguish whether we are talking about lifting heavy loads (which requires an exact weight specification), or perhaps walking uphill—which, for certain medical conditions, is actually more taxing than carrying a bag of cement.

If a disease makes it impossible to perform a specific role, a specialist must initiate the process for a job reassignment and a residual work capacity assessment. In such instances, an occupational medicine specialist should be consulted. (For example, if a woman lives in Washington, D.C., her best bet is to consult the occupational medicine department at the local community health center... I believe that team is located near the suburban neighborhood.)

Once it is determined that the patient can no longer perform certain duties, a ruling on reduced work capacity for those specific tasks is issued, which automatically triggers a decision regarding a change in job placement.

This is precisely where nasty problems arise. An employer might claim there is no suitable vacancy for such a worker within the company (often citing issues with professional qualifications), and they quickly declare that employee redundant. From there, you already know how the story ends 😢 ... while larger corporations usually manage to find a substitute position, those roles are sometimes lower-paying.

My advice is for the woman to assess whether her current company can actually accommodate a different role (if she works for a private entity, she might want to forget about that possibility entirely). Once she decides, she should speak with her physician and her surgeon about initiating the formal procedure for a job reassignment.

Just so I can emphasize this one more time

The surgeon needs to put in writing exactly which "heavy duties" the hospital is prohibited from assigning. If he just mentioned it verbally, then frankly, it’s completely useless.

Furthermore, an employer isn't obligated to change a workstation based solely on a discharge summary or medical history—those are documents meant for the patient and their doctor, and ultimately, they are private. To force a change, the employer requires an official ruling from a Medicare commission.

brisknomad6 said:How much longer can this go on?
Until the anesthesia fails her, she suffers a thrombosis, or her kidneys just give out completely?

Who can we even turn to?
The doctor blames Medicare,
Medicare points the finger at the employer,
and the employer just shifts everything back onto her...

Seriously, how long is this going to last?

granitebadger25 explained the whole situation perfectly; I don't have anything else to add. But if things still don't move forward, maybe it’s time to take it to the top brass.

Ljubica Đukanović, Medicare, business address, local organization

thanks so much everyone 🙂

seriously...

now we actually have a starting point...

her qualifications are honestly even higher than what she's doing right now, so she totally deserves an 'office' gig... you know, like working a register or even stepping up as a manager... basically anything that doesn't involve hauling boxes, stocking shelves, or lugging heavy crates of water and beer around all day...

thanks a ton, I'm definitely printing this out...

if anyone else thinks of something, please feel free to drop it here

God, this is such a joke 😠 😠

So, I'm sitting here staring at this specialist's report right in front of me:

Patient needs to wear a brace constantly; totally incapable of any physical exertion. Needs three months of medical leave before a follow-up (scheduled for March 3rd). I strongly recommend referring the patient to the disability board.
Primary Surgeon (Abdominal Surgery)

And then there's the decision from the board, which basically says
Medical leave is extended until December 20th.
Issued today.

So, yeah... the board just completely ignored what the specialist recommended regarding how much time was actually needed. It's unbelievable.

One more thing though...

Does anyone know who’s actually responsible for starting the paperwork and sending patients off to the disability board in the first place?

I just don't get one thing: who is actually looking out for Medicare's interests here? Because up until now, they've been nickel-and-diming everything from surgeries to hospital stays... what on earth is still "too expensive" for them compared to just letting someone stay on disability leave?

It’s like they can't see that draining the workforce—all thanks to their "frugal" little decisions—is actually a massive net loss for everyone involved???

And don't even get me started on the human element of this whole mess (as if they even have a soul to begin with)

Hmm, let me clarify

What I stated above refers specifically to a permanent disability to work.
In this particular instance, we are still looking at a temporary incapacity... which makes perfect sense, given that the surgeon will likely be able to make a formal recommendation after three months.

I am not entirely certain what the standard protocols are for temporary disability following these types of surgeries. It is possible the standard period is only one month, requiring a new surgeon's opinion for every subsequent extension—I don't know. One should probably consult with their primary care physician to get the facts.
There are likely administrative reasons behind this as well. As Joshua Chavez pointed out, the employer is actually the one paying the medical commission, not Medicare. Essentially, if sick leave lasts up to a month (or perhaps 45 days, I can't recall the exact number), the company covers the cost. Once you pass that threshold, Medicare takes over the bill. Consequently, it is more financially advantageous for Medicare to have a patient take three separate one-month leaves (with a single day of work in between each) so the money comes out of the company's pocket instead of Medicare's. 👎

But unfortunately, that is just how the system works. Once bureaucracy gets involved, actual medicine is sidelined, and common sense goes right out the window. 😢

Seriously, thank you all so much, once again...

I actually printed out this whole thread for my mom... she read through everything.
(She was a little confused about how we even found all this info and why people were being so incredibly helpful 🙂)

So, we called Medicare and they gave us the number for this lady who handles cases just like ours, but since she was stuck in meetings all day, we’re gonna try calling her back tomorrow...

Maybe they can give us some solid advice, or at least point us toward someone who actually knows what they're doing...

🙂
thanks