Plain English summary
A suitable-employment dispute usually means the insurer is saying you can safely do other work, or earn more than you are currently earning, despite your injury. That conclusion should be tested against your certificate of capacity, treating evidence, actual duties, skills, licences, commute, work history, job availability and likely wages. If those assumptions are wrong, they may unfairly affect weekly payments, return-to-work planning, or the way the insurer frames the dispute.
Some workers and older documents still use the phrase "section 74 notice" when talking about liability disputes. The safer approach is to read the actual notice: identify whether it disputes liability, weekly payments, work capacity, medical expenses, earning capacity, or suitable employment, then answer that issue with evidence rather than a generic objection.
What the insurer may be assuming
- That a job exists in your area and is realistically available to someone with your restrictions.
- That your certificates and treating reports allow the physical or psychological demands of that job.
- That your age, education, language, licences, experience and retraining position fit the role.
- That the wage figure is realistic, not just an optimistic labour-market figure.
- That the job can be performed sustainably, not just briefly on a good day.
What the response should show
- Which tasks conflict with medical restrictions, symptoms, medication effects or treatment needs.
- Whether the role requires licences, training, experience, travel or hours you do not realistically have.
- What treating doctors, specialists, physiotherapists, psychologists or rehabilitation providers actually say.
- Whether the wage and hours assumption matches real local vacancies and your current capacity.
- How the decision affects weekly payments, suitable duties, treatment access and dispute strategy.
Why a page title or notice heading is not enough
A notice can look official while still leaving major gaps. It may name a job but not explain the real duties. It may rely on an IME but ignore treating restrictions. It may assume earnings without showing vacancies, hours or wage evidence. It may say you have capacity but not deal with pain flare-ups, medication, travel limits, psychological symptoms, or the practical risk of re-injury.
The response should force the dispute back to facts. Ask what role is alleged, what evidence supports that role, what wage is assumed, what restrictions were accepted or rejected, and which review or dispute pathway applies. This is how a thin title becomes a real evidence issue.
Evidence that may help
Medical capacity
Certificates of capacity, specialist reports, treatment notes, imaging, functional restrictions and medication effects.
Job reality
Actual job descriptions, rosters, physical task lists, travel requirements, licences, training records and job advertisements.
Payment impact
PIAWE records, payslips, earning-capacity calculations, work capacity reasons and weekly payment notices.
Common dispute points
Capacity: the insurer may say you have current work capacity, while your treating evidence says the proposed work exceeds safe restrictions or cannot be sustained reliably.
Suitable work: the insurer may rely on a generic job title without matching the role to your injury, experience, location, language, licence status, retraining needs or psychological tolerance.
Earning capacity: the insurer may assume a wage that looks possible on paper but is not realistic for the actual hours, vacancies, restrictions and labour market available to you.
Procedure: the decision may need a review, further evidence, legal advice, or a Personal Injury Commission pathway depending on what exactly has been decided.
How NSW Work Injury Claim can help
We help identify what the insurer has actually decided, separate suitable-employment assumptions from medical and wage issues, organise the evidence, and work out the correct response path. Where ILARS funding is approved, eligible legal costs and necessary disbursements may be covered. Funding approval, weekly payment outcomes, treatment approval and dispute outcomes are never guaranteed and depend on the evidence and applicable law.
FAQs
Is a section 74 notice the same as a suitable employment decision?
Not always. Older or informal wording may refer to a section 74 dispute notice, while a suitable-employment issue often sits inside a work capacity or weekly-payment decision. The practical task is to identify exactly what liability, capacity, earning capacity, or payment issue the insurer is disputing.
What should I check first if the insurer says I can do suitable work?
Check the actual job tasks, hours, commute, qualifications, wage assumption, and medical restrictions. A job title by itself does not prove that the work is suitable or realistically available to you.
Can suitable employment assumptions reduce weekly payments?
They can affect weekly payments if the insurer relies on a higher earning-capacity assumption, but that assumption can be challenged where the medical, vocational, wage, or labour-market evidence does not support it.
What documents are useful for a suitable employment dispute?
Useful documents may include certificates of capacity, specialist restrictions, functional capacity reports, rehabilitation notes, job descriptions, rosters, wage material, job advertisements, licence records, and written reasons from the insurer.
Should I only argue that I disagree with the insurer?
No. A stronger response usually identifies each assumption and answers it with evidence: task by task, restriction by restriction, and wage assumption by wage assumption.
Can this type of dispute go to the Personal Injury Commission?
Some disputes may progress to the Personal Injury Commission depending on the decision, the evidence, and the review pathway. The correct route should be checked before filing anything important.
Related NSW workers compensation guides
Need help with a suitable-employment or weekly-payment dispute?
Send the decision notice, certificates of capacity, treating reports and wage material. We can help identify what issue is really being decided and what evidence should be gathered before the dispute becomes harder to correct.