Massachusetts Workers Compensation Lawyers Blog
After a workplace injury, light duty can be a legitimate bridge back to work. It can also be a pressure tool, used to reduce wage-replacement benefits, create paper trails that suggest you’re fine, and set up disputes about what you’re capable of earning. In 2026, we continue to see the same playbook: a worker gets hurt, is treated appropriately, and then the insurer and employer quickly pivot to a return-to-work narrative that may not match medical reality.
Massachusetts provides partial incapacity benefits under M.G.L. c. 152, §35 for injured workers who can work in some capacity but have reduced earning ability due to the injury. Section 35 sets out the core formula: the insurer pays weekly compensation equal to 60% of the difference between your pre-injury average weekly wage and the weekly wage you are capable of earning after the injury, with a cap tied to total incapacity benefits.
Understanding that formula is important. But in practice, most Section 35 fights aren’t about the formula itself. They’re about the inputs: what your average weekly wage really is, what work you’re medically allowed to do, and what wages you can realistically earn in the open labor market with your restrictions.
What light duty should mean and what it often becomes
Light duty should be a medically guided plan that respects restrictions. That usually means the treating doctor sets specific limits on lifting, bending, overhead use, standing, walking, driving, tool use, repetitive-motion use, and sometimes reduced hours. A suitable light-duty job should match those restrictions in a meaningful way.
The problem is that light duty is sometimes offered in name only. Workers are given tasks that quietly exceed restrictions, or the “job” is cobbled together temporarily and disappears once it has served its purpose. In other situations, the worker is offered a position with fewer hours or much lower pay, and then the insurer tries to treat that pay cut as the new normal rather than a temporary limitation caused by injury.
The core of Section 35 in Massachusetts is the legal framework
Section 35 is designed for partial incapacity. It recognizes that many injured workers can do some work, but not their prior work, or not at their prior wages. The statute provides weekly compensation equal to sixty percent of the wage gap between pre-injury average weekly wage and post-injury earning capacity, and it caps the weekly partial benefit at no more than seventy-five percent of what the worker would receive under total incapacity benefits under Section 34.
Mass.gov’s overview aligns with this concept: partial incapacity benefits apply when you can still work but lose part of your earning capacity because of your injury or illness. That sounds straightforward, but the phrase “capable of earning” gives insurers room to argue.
How insurers cut checks in 2026 using three pressure points
The first pressure point is the average weekly wage (AWW). If your AWW is understated, every benefit calculation starts too low. This can happen when overtime, shift differentials, bonuses, second jobs, or seasonal variations aren’t properly included. Workers often don’t realize an AWW dispute is even happening until checks arrive lower than expected.
The second pressure point is earning capacity. Insurers sometimes treat a theoretical wage as if it is real. They may argue you are “capable” of earning more than you actually can with your restrictions, education, and job market conditions. They may point to generic job listings, ignore transportation limitations, or gloss over the fact that the employer’s light-duty offer isn’t stable or isn’t truly within restrictions.
The third pressure point is medical framing. Insurers rely heavily on wording: improved, tolerating, able to return, no objective findings, maximum medical improvement. Those phrases can be used to justify benefit reductions even when the worker is still in pain, still limited, and still unable to earn their prior wage.
Why is being capable of earning not the same as what the insurer says you could earn
Section 35 uses the idea of capacity, not just actual wages. That gives insurers room to argue. But capacity in a workers’ compensation context is supposed to be grounded in reality: the restrictions your doctor sets, the job demands you can actually perform, and the labor market you’re actually competing in.
If you are working light duty and earning less, that’s often the clearest evidence of reduced earning capacity, because it’s real. But you still need medical documentation explaining why the reduction exists and why it’s related to the work injury. Otherwise, insurers will argue the reduction is voluntary, temporary for unrelated reasons, or inflated.
Light-duty disputes we see constantly, and why they matter
One common dispute is the “task creep” problem: a worker returns to light duty, and tasks slowly drift beyond restrictions. The worker tries to keep the job, pushes through pain, and then the insurer later argues, If you did that, you can do more. That dynamic punishes work ethic. The safer approach is to document when tasks exceed restrictions and to communicate in writing when you are being asked to do something medically unsafe.
Another common dispute is reduced hours. If your restrictions limit your schedule, the wage loss may be substantial. Insurers sometimes try to treat part-time work as evidence that you should be satisfied with reduced earnings. Section 35 exists to address exactly that kind of partial wage loss, but the evidence must connect the hours limitation to the injury.
A third dispute is job availability. Some employers offer a light-duty slot that lasts only long enough for the insurer to modify benefits, then eliminate it. When that happens, the worker needs a strategy to demonstrate that suitable work at comparable wages is not realistically available and that any reduction in earnings is injury-driven.
How to push back in 2026 and build your case like a record, not a conversation
The most effective pushback is boring, but it works, and it is documentation.
Your restrictions should be in writing, specific, and updated as your condition changes. If your doctor writes light duty with no details, you’re inviting an insurer to define light duty in a way that benefits them. Specific restrictions, lifting limits, standing limits, repetition limits, no ladders, no overhead work, and reduced hours create a measurable framework.
Your job duties should also be documented. If you are asked to do tasks outside restrictions, it should be recorded contemporaneously. The point is not to be confrontational; it is to prevent a later rewrite of what happened.
Your wages should be preserved with pay stubs, schedules, and proof of typical overtime or differentials prior to injury. AWW disputes are technical and fact-driven; workers usually win them with records, not arguments.
The cap matters and why Section 34 is always in the background
Section 34 governs total incapacity and sets total benefits at sixty percent of the average weekly wage, with statutory maximums and minimums. Section 35 then caps partial benefits at seventy-five percent of what you would get under Section 34.
In practical terms, if you’re significantly limited, the cap can matter, and insurers know it. They may shape earning capacity arguments to keep the benefit number low and stable over time. Understanding the relationship between Section 34 and Section 35 helps you see what the insurer is doing when checks change.
The big picture is that light duty should help recovery, not lock in a pay cut
Workers’ comp benefits are supposed to stabilize you while you heal and help you return safely to productive work. When light duty becomes a tool to reduce benefits without respecting medical limits, it undermines that purpose. Section 35 exists so that a worker who can do “some work” isn’t forced to absorb all the wage loss caused by the injury.
If your checks were cut after light duty, if your earning capacity is being exaggerated, or if your job tasks don’t match restrictions, you don’t have to accept the insurer’s framing as the final answer.
Call (617) 777-7777 for a free consultation. The workers’ compensation attorneys at Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers help Massachusetts workers challenge unfair Section 35 calculations, AWW disputes, earning-capacity gamesmanship, and light-duty arrangements that don’t reflect the real medical limits of a work injury.