Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Taff2
Employee works with epoxy resin + fibre glass - one-off task.
His face becomes inflamed & he takes the week off work - is this a RIDDOR case?
It appears that he is sensitive to one of the constituents of the resin.
Is it recorded as a disease or an injury?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ClaireL
Occupational dermatitis due to exposure to epoxy resin is a reportable disease under RIDDOR.
Even if it wasn't occupational dermatitis but a reaction to one of the substances he was off from work for more than 3 days due to an incident arising from a work activity and therefore it is reportable.
If he's already been off for a week then really you should have reported it by now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Matthew
Taff2,
Reporting of an occupational disease to an employee shall only apply if you've received a written statement prepared by a registered medical practitioner diagnosing a disease as one specified in Schedule 3 - reg 5 of RIDDOR.
Hope this helps.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
David is correct. You need a formal written diagnosis from a qualified medical practitioner. Incidentally, with occupational contact dermatitis there does not need to be any time off work. It is the medical diagnosis that triggers the RIDDOR report.
You state that it appears he reacts to one of the constituents of the epoxy. How has this diagnosis been reached? Merely assuming this is the case can be misleading. A proper patch test is needed and you will need to ensure that the contact dermatitis specialist who conducts the patch test is properly briefed so that he or she knows what to patch test with.
I have seen patch tests that are accurate but irrelevant and that could have resulted in an acceptance of an occupational skin problem when this was not the case.
I have also seen a case of a painter spraying isocyanate based paints with severe facial and hand dermatitis. The assumption was made that this was due to his work. However, investigation showed that the true cause of his skin problem was non work related stress! Counselling resolved the problem.
Investigating a suspected case of occupational skin disease is far from as simple as many assume. It is easy to reach the wrong conclusion and many apparently unrelated factors may need to be included in the evaluation of the true cause.
I wrote a short article on this last year for Safety Management. If anyone would like more on this just get in touch.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ClaireL
Still a 3-day reportable though even if there's no proof of occ dermatitis.
I wouldn't worry about what it's reported under as long as it's reported. It's the not being reported that goes down really badly with the HSE.
Also, if he puts a claim in (which he could do) the fact that it wasn't reported to the authorities will make the situation worse.
In my humble opinion just report it and let the HSE wory about what section it falls under.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Taff2
Thanks Claire / David,
The injured person as exposed to the epoxy resin on Friday - he phoned in today to state that he'll be off for a few days.
Apparently he suffered this inflammation previously - when exposed to epoxy resin when it took him a week to recover.
He has not been seen by a GP - opting to go for over the counter medicine and probably a self-certification for the absence period (1 or 7 days). Therefore we do not expect to receive a written statement prepared by a registered medical practitioner diagnosing a disease as one specified in Schedule 3 - reg 5 of RIDDOR.
Re: "Even if it wasn't occupational dermatitis but a reaction to one of the substances he was off from work for more than 3 days due to an incident arising from a work activity and therefore it is reportable." - Claire - the working on the HSE web-site is slightly different:
"Reportable over-three-day injuries
If there is an accident connected with work ... and your employee ..., suffers an over-three-day injury you must report it to the enforcing authority within ten days.
An over-3-day injury is one which is not "major" but results in the injured person being away from work OR unable to do their full range of their normal duties for more than three days".
You term it "incident" - the HSE term it "injury", is dermatitis an injury? This is the confusing bit........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Claire
I would agree, but counsel caution about assuming that it is an occupational skin problem. What if he was off work for several days, but the true cause was not occupational? Would you still be duty bound to report?
I have been involved in many cases where an occupational cause was assumed. Even HSE did not always pick up on factors that indicated that the true cause was non-occupational.
Incidentally, caution also with a diagnosis of occupational skin disease from a GP. Unless the proper tests have been carried out the diagnosis may be way off beam. I have seen cases where compensation has been paid where non was due.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ClaireL
If you say he's reacted before then it sounds like he is having an allergic reaction to the resin. I'm not an occ health specialist but that isn't my understanding of what occ dermatitis is.
In which case I would consider an allergic reaction to be a type of injury. However, I'm sure others, may disagree with me....and others will agree with me.....
C'est la vie. RIDDOR isn't always black and white.
My advice would still be the same. Play safe and report it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Taff2
Claire, (et-al)
Just a passing comment regarding your 2nd posting:
"I wouldn't worry about what it's reported under as long as it's reported. It's the not being reported that goes down really badly with the HSE."
I recently (in last month) had to report a case to the HSE under RIDDOR which occurred in December 2005 (predecessor had not reported it); this involved a 10+ days on restricted duties; then a 3 day stint in hospital for surgery / recuperation / observation - then a number of weeks away from work - and a surgical amputation at a later date + over 18 months of light duties. The HSE inspector + his principal inspector have said that they are OK with the late reporting.
Reality is different from perceived HSE threat !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Claire
If he is really having an allergic skin reaction to a constituent of the epoxy then this is allergic contact dermatitis and, as such, reportable. However, only a patch test can truly determine with any certainty whether this is a genuine allergic reaction and to what.
I gave a presentation on investigating a suspected case of occupational skin disease at the Federation of Occupational Health Nurses in the EU conference last year in London. If anyone would like a printout of the slides I used just e-mail me.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ClaireL
Taff,
Being an ex-inspector I would agree that the threat is often worse than the reality!
However, I also know that different inspectors take different approaches. So, it may be that the late reporting gets flagged up as a reason to pick out your RIDDOR from the rest of the pile for investigation.
In one of my prosecutions the late reporting went down as an aggravating factor (and therefore an increase in fine).
The HSE are fickle. My first prosecution wouldn't have been a prosecution at all but for the fact that I was a new inspector and needed a prosecution under my belt so it was flagged up as an easy nick!!! (sorry, but it's a harsh world we live in). Because they use discretion so much in letting things go (that technically break the law and could be enforced against) it means that it's always a gamble. Factors such as: have they got a blitz on that industry / topic, is it a new inspector, are they in a bad mood....all come into play.
Now that I'm on the other side of the fence I treat the HSE with caution as I know from experience that it's not a good idea to give them an excuse to come knocking.
Just my view though and we all have to make our own judgements in what are often grey circumstances.
Best of luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch
'Apparently he suffered this inflammation previously - when exposed to epoxy resin when it took him a week to recover.'
What is he going for a hat trick?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Glyn Atkinson
Have I understood this situation correctly that this is not the first report of this type of allergy / reaction to the substance, but the person has already gone for one set of home remedy treatments and time off?
Do you have some form of return to work process where the reason for absence through illness or this type of allergic reaction would have been discussed?
From my initial reading, if correct, you have then allowed this worker to be re-subjected to a known substance that MAY be the catalyst for his allergic reaction, if proven.
If you are in ANY doubt as to whether this substance in the instigator of his ill health, surely you must remove him from this work area until tests have been carried out and results known?
What about your COSHH assessment of process and possible control measures to prevent this substance from coming into contact with ALL USERS?
Have you done one, what were the required control measures found to be needed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Taff2
Correct this is not the first report of this type of allergy / reaction to the substance - the first time occurred some 24 years ago - which might have been here - and he is fully aware of his allergy to epoxy, and avoids it at all costs.
Yes, we allowed this worker to be re-subjected to a known substance that MAY be the catalyst for his allergic reaction. But since the actual material which he was exposed to was only termed as a resin bonded surface by the supplier / manufacturer, we were not aware that it was epoxy based. The supplier has stated that they do not proved MSDS for the material (safety grids for flooring!!!).
He and his supervisor have agreed that he will not be requested to perform any activities using the material (or work in close proximity to the material)
No COSHH assessment for this pre-incident - due to lack of MSDS, had there been based on the documents available, we would still have had this problem. It is now on the COSHH team radar screen - only one other person at risk - he has been similarly exposed without any health effects - but correct control measures will be provided as required. Classic case of sensitisation.
Many thanks for all your responses today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
One factor you will need to consider is bioavailability. You state that the product is a safety grid for flooring. If this is a finished product that is obtained from the manufacturer in a fully cured condition, unless your processing of it causes reactivation of the epoxy or you use some form of epoxy based product, perhaps to join or stick the product together, then it may be that there is no release of the epoxy, in which case there will be no allergic reaction.
You can liken this to stainless steel. This is technically chrome-nickel-steel. Both chrome and nickel are common sensitisers. However, stainless steel is not, since the chrome and nickel are so tighly bound that no molecules are being release to penetrate the skin and elicit an immune response.
There are other reasons why he might be reacting to the material, but it is beyond the scope of the forum to attempt to explain them in detail. If you need information on this drop me an e-mail.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By William
When would you report this? Would you wait until it has been proved that this was caused by the substance or would you do this before hand on the say so of someone who has not seen a doctor but has claimed he has had this condition before when working with the substances in question which he worked with again without advising before hand that this may occur? I would send him to a doctor to determine what exactly caused this and also ask him why he did not think to bring this up before working with the substance. It may be a good idea if before people work with this substance in the future if an occupational health questionaire is used before hand to assess whether people working in this area may be susecptable to dermatitus from this substance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
May I comment on the concept of people being susceptible to dermatitis?
With an allergic contact dermatitis we currently have no means of determining with any certainty who might become sensitised and develop an allergic reaction. Nor is there any indication of impending sensitisation. In fact the process of sensitisation does not show, it is only the subsequent allergic reaction that can be easily detected. However, even here caution is required. It is easy to assume an allergic reaction and to a particular substance when this may not be the case.
The only true way to determine whether a person has an allergic reaction is through the appropriate "patch test" by a qualified person, usually a dermatologist. Anything else is supposition and guesswork and can easily be (and in my experience in investigating such problems frequently is) completely wrong.
In your pre-employment questioning ask whether the person has suffered from an allergic reaction to a particular chemical by all means, but also check whether this was properly diagnosed.
Remember also that a skin reaction can - and almost always is - a combination of irritant and allergic reactions. Indeed, it can be stated that without some irritant effect an allergic contact dermatitis will not occur, since a certain chemical needed to trigger the process (TNF-alpha) will not be present. Not usually an issue since most sensitisers area also irritants.
Chris.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.