Suitable employment NSW: how insurers use it to cut weekly payments

What to do first (next 48 hours)

Request the insurer's written reasons, vocational source material, and earning-capacity assumptions.
Ask your treating doctor to respond to the exact tasks the insurer says are "suitable".
Collect work-history, qualification, and wage evidence that shows why the proposed roles are unrealistic.
Request proof those roles are actually available now in your local labour market (not just generic role titles).
Lock your review timeline early so weekly-payment exposure does not expand while evidence is still being assembled.

What "suitable employment" should actually reflect

Suitable employment is not a theoretical list of desk jobs. It should reflect your injury restrictions, education, prior experience, transferrable skills, and whether those roles are realistically accessible in your labour market.

Start with the work capacity decisions guide and then apply the section 44 review strategy for internal review sequencing.

What usually goes wrong before payments are cut

Insurers assume you can perform roles that require qualifications or experience you do not have.
Vocational options are treated as if they are available jobs, without proving realistic access.
Wage assumptions ignore your pre-injury pattern, local demand, and practical restrictions.
Treating specialist restrictions are underweighted when insurer IME opinions are preferred.

If weekly payments are already reduced, run the urgent checklist in weekly payments stopped and verify the rate logic with the PIAWE calculation guide.

First 14 days: suitable-employment response plan

Day 1-2: request decision reasons, vocational reports, and insurer wage assumptions in writing.

Day 3-6: obtain updated treating evidence with clear functional limits and task tolerances.

Day 7-10: gather employment history and wage records to challenge earning-capacity assumptions.

Day 11-14: finalise review submissions and prepare escalation strategy if the insurer maintains the decision.

If liability or weekly payments are also disputed, align this with your section 78 notice response and the PIC disputes process.

Build a role-by-role evidence matrix before the insurer locks in assumptions

When insurers list 3 to 6 “suitable” jobs, claimants often respond with broad disagreement. That is usually too weak. Instead, build a one-page matrix that tests each proposed role against concrete evidence.

Column 1: the exact role title and insurer source (vocational report, labour market table, or phone update).
Column 2: required tasks, hours, licences, and commute assumptions written in plain language.
Column 3: treating-doctor restrictions mapped task-by-task (lifting, standing, repetition, travel tolerance, reliability).
Column 4: local vacancy proof (or absence of proof), pay range, and why your background does or does not match.
Column 5: your requested correction (remove role, reduce hours assumption, or revise earnings-capacity estimate).

Ask for a written response to each row of that matrix. This forces the insurer to respond to facts instead of repeating a generic “suitable employment exists” statement.

Do not let an outdated resume or expired licence become a fake earning-capacity shortcut

A common insurer shortcut is to treat an old forklift licence, software skill, office role, or past certificate as proof that you can still move straight into a different job. That assumption often ignores expiry dates, recency gaps, retraining needs, language demands, and whether your current restrictions actually fit the role.

Ask the insurer to identify the exact licence, certificate, software, or prior role it says makes the job suitable now.
State whether that qualification is expired, inactive, rarely used, or dependent on retraining you have not completed.
Match those requirements against your current medical restrictions, medication effects, attendance reliability, and commute limits.
Ask for real vacancy evidence showing employers are currently hiring someone with your actual background, not an idealised version of it.

This is especially important when the insurer relies on an old resume or a labour-market report that overstates your transferable skills. Force the decision back onto current facts, not historical labels.

A short host placement or trial shift does not automatically prove suitable employment

Insurers sometimes point to a one-day host placement, brief work trial, or unpaid observational shift as proof that a role is suitable. That is often an overreach. A short trial may show only that you attempted tasks in a controlled setting, not that you can sustain a real, paid job with ordinary productivity, attendance, travel, and symptom recovery demands.

Ask exactly what duties were performed, for how long, with what supervision, rest breaks, and productivity adjustments.
Record any pain flare, medication increase, extra recovery time, or failed follow-on attendance after the trial.
Check whether the insurer is relying on a real paid vacancy or just a temporary placement arranged for assessment purposes.
Compare the trial conditions with your treating-doctor restrictions before the insurer turns a short experiment into a long-term earnings assumption.

If the placement was unpaid, heavily supervised, or modified beyond normal workplace conditions, say that plainly in writing. The issue is not whether you managed a few hours once. The issue is whether the insurer can prove ongoing, realistic, suitable employment in the real labour market.

Related guides

Received a suitable-employment finding?

Early evidence can materially change review outcomes before insurer assumptions become embedded in later dispute stages.

Start Free Claim Check Call (02) 9635 0889