Background
Amy Griffiths was placed by The Job Center, a temporary employment agency, at a DHL facility as a sorter — a physically demanding role requiring squatting, jogging, and lifting heavy bins. On December 19, 2021, approximately one month into the placement, Griffiths fractured her right big toe when she dropped an 80-pound skid onto her foot. She sought emergency treatment and was placed in a walking boot and on crutches, eventually coming under the care of Dr. Jason Harrod at Bluegrass Orthopedics, who assigned light-duty restrictions throughout his treatment period from February through August 2022.
While Griffiths was still recovering and had not reached maximum medical improvement (MMI), The Job Center sent her several accommodated job offer letters. The only offer Griffiths testified she received was an April 19, 2022 letter offering her a position at a Christian Life Center food pantry — a role involving distributing donated food, discarding expired items, and occasional cleaning. The Job Center terminated her TTD benefits on March 17, 2022. Griffiths declined the food pantry offer and performed no additional work before Dr. Harrod placed her at MMI on August 16, 2022, releasing her with medium work-duty restrictions.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded Griffiths TTD benefits from the date of injury through MMI, finding that the food pantry job was not customary employment given her background — which included associate’s degrees in business administration and criminal justice/paralegal studies, and prior experience as a blackjack dealer, photographer, stall superintendent, and exercise rider. The Workers’ Compensation Board and Court of Appeals both affirmed, and The Job Center appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s award of TTD benefits through MMI. Under KRS 342.0011(11)(a), a claimant is entitled to TTD benefits if she has not reached MMI and has not reached a level of improvement permitting return to employment. The Court applied its prior framework from Trane Commercial Systems v. Tipton, 481 S.W.3d 800 (Ky. 2016), which requires that a release be to “customary employment” — work within the employee’s physical restrictions and consistent with her experience, training, and education — before TTD benefits may be terminated on that basis.
The Court found the ALJ properly weighed Griffiths’ education and prior work history against the food pantry job’s responsibilities and reasonably concluded the offer was not customary employment but rather minimal or make-work. The ALJ’s own factual finding was further supported by The Job Center’s March 15, 2022 offer letter, in which the employer itself acknowledged that Griffiths had not reached MMI and could not return full-time to her former position. Because the food pantry job did not constitute a release to customary employment, the ALJ correctly declined to terminate TTD benefits when Griffiths refused the offer.
The Court also declined to resolve the broader question of whether an employee’s voluntary refusal of a valid customary-employment offer could itself terminate TTD benefits, finding that question unnecessary to reach given the ALJ’s unchallenged factual finding that the offered position was not customary in the first place.
Key Takeaways
- TTD benefits continue until MMI when a released-to-light-duty employee is offered only make-work or minimal jobs that do not match her prior experience, training, and education — even if she physically could perform those jobs.
- An ALJ may consider a claimant’s full occupational background (degrees, prior careers, pre-injury job duties) when assessing whether an accommodated offer constitutes “customary employment” sufficient to terminate TTD benefits.
- Employers can undermine their own position: The Job Center’s March 15 offer letter, which expressly acknowledged Griffiths could not return to her former position and had not reached MMI, was cited by both the ALJ and the Supreme Court as evidence supporting the TTD award.
- This decision is designated “Not to Be Published” and is not binding precedent in Kentucky courts, though it may be cited for consideration under RAP 41 where no published opinion adequately addresses the point of law.
Why It Matters
This case reinforces a meaningful limitation on a common employer/insurer strategy: offering injured workers nominal light-duty positions to cut off TTD benefits before MMI. Under Kentucky law, an accommodated offer stops the TTD clock only if the job is genuinely customary for that worker — tailored to her actual skills and background, not merely within her physical restrictions. Attorneys advising employers and insurers should scrutinize whether offered positions genuinely reflect the claimant’s pre-injury work history before terminating benefits, and should be cautious about written representations in offer letters that concede the employee cannot return to her former role.
For claimants’ counsel, the case illustrates that ALJs have meaningful discretion to evaluate the nature of accommodated offers against a worker’s full vocational profile. The decision also leaves open — for another day — whether an employee’s refusal of a genuinely customary light-duty offer prior to MMI can serve as a basis to terminate TTD, a question that remains unresolved in Kentucky workers’ compensation law.