Posted By paulw71 Im sorry but how did this injury take so long to manifest itself. If the initial injury at work was minor but it has since been aggravated then I would say it is not reportable

Posted By paulw71 unless of course that after the initial accident she was unable to do her normal job for three days. Was she put on light work or speacial duties, if so then report it.

Posted By Shell Styan The incident was entered in our accident book a week later. I will be discussing this with the member of staff when she returns as this goes against our reporting procedures. She went over on her ankle when mopping as the mop bucket gave way. (dont quite understand this but with find out more when she comes back.) She had no time off initially and was not on light duties. She then visited her GP 17 days after the accident who told her to rest and elevate her foot and signed her off for two weeks (the nature of her work involved standing up).

Posted By Juan Carlos Arias I'm of the opinion that this case is not RIDDOR reportable. nonetheless it needs to be investigated properly, all records kept safe and ensure any action points highlighted during the investigation or revision of the RA implemented. After 17 days, The initial minor injury might have been aggravated by other factors.

Posted By DP Based on your information I agree with Juan - non reportable. Fully investigate the matter as you intend to - if you are not too comfortable with this advice just call the reporting centre, give them the details on the incident and they will advise you accordingly - note the advice in your investigation.

Posted By Richard Altoft Unless you know it is NOT from a work related cause then you MUST report it. I was once injured, soldiered on and only when X rayed some years later was found to have chipped a bone. It is certainly possible that 17 days can elapse before a person takes medical advice and finally sees sense in taking time off. R

Posted By Peter F Why don't you contact the HSE and ask if it is reportable. They will tell you. They are there for that advice and you don't have to give yours or the company name. Maybe you could come back on and let us know the answer. RIDDOR must be one of the most discussed topics on these pages yet everyone seems to always be split.

Posted By DP You are not kidding Peter F- that’s why I advised calling the center but having said that, they are sometimes confused and information contradicts itself - you sometimes have to challenge !! It can be very confusing for the posters (with respect to all ) all the differences of opinion on the forum. I only this week received some very interesting information on RIDDOR from a colleague of mine who is currently trialing the Primary Authority approach. I can now tell you than in the past (over the years) I have reported many occurrences that I need not have done. Many people over report which need not be a bad thing but it could have consequences in any pre-qual process for certain company's . One of the most frustrating things I find is that when the F2508 is processed at the Reporting Centre - if you have been cautious and reported. If they then decide its not reportable, they mark it so but don’t tell you!!! Now I can understand, they may have staffing issues with admin but an email back perhaps to let you know so you can learn from it?

Posted By Crim Shell, while you may be correct about the head injury that becomes a fatality I believe this person is still alive following her leg injury. Don't be wishing that onto her? This is an example of the focus of a thread going astray, please keep to the subject.

Posted By Crim Shell, it appears that you have rewritten the RIDDOR Regs.

Posted By ITK Reportable. Some injuries or cases of ill health can manifest weeks or even months after the incident. ITK.

Posted By Shell Styan No I spoke to RIDDOR not HSE Helpline

Posted By Juan Carlos Arias I totally agree that the persons at the call center, on many occasions do not have a clearer understanding of what is reportable or not than any of us. I am convinced that the answer you received today on this case,might be a different one tomorrow or even later on. But, by all means, the best is to have a chat with them as to show you have nothing to hide and keep records of your conversation with them. However,if I read the regs conscienciously,I still think that this incident is not reportable. Obviously everyone of us has the right to do whatever they believe is correct. I think you've done good today ringing the call center.

Posted By Jack Queries about reporting of ‘3 day’ accidents where the injured worker continues to work for a period immediately after the accident and then takes time off work have been raised on this forum in the past and usually there are a large number of conflicting responses. I’ve always assumed they were reportable because as Tabs says there is nothing in the SI to suggest otherwise. However, it does seem odd that the guidance does not make this clear (one way or the other), if only to avoid everyone wasting so much time (26 responses on this post!). There is a reference to this in an the HSE report: “Audit of RIDDOR Reporting at Large Coal Mines” http://www.hse.gov.uk/mining/accident/miaudit.htm It includes the following: “RIDDOR Regulation 3(2) indicates that a period of absence, as a consequence of an injury sustained at work, for more than three days is reportable. The absence period need not necessarily immediately follow the accident. For the purposes of the audit, if a man had worked in his normal employment for a full shift on the day following the accident, the review of that event was stopped. It should be recognised, however, that there is an overall obligation on the responsible person to identify a delayed absence resulting from an injury.”

Posted By Jack An HSE report saying "The absence period need not necessarily immediately follow the accident" would suggest to me the HSE do not think it is a grey area"

Posted By Jack Maybe the HSE wouldn't want to get involved in this particular issue because they would really like to remove '3 day' accidents from RIDDOR. Last time the Board considered it the 'time wasn't right'.

Posted By Steve Clark Richard, i agree - the only time limit is on submitting the report within 10 days. Clearly this will cover the vast majority of cases. The regulation is also clear that the report is required for incapacity were this is in relation to an accident at work - it does not say that the incapacity is necessarily concantenated with the accident. If we are to start nit picking where will it end? I.E. what about a night shift worker; what is a 'day' for these people. If they work 10:00-06:00 and are injured at 11:50, is the day just the portion of the shift pre 00:00 or the end of the shift within which the injury occurs? Common sense has to be applied in all things surely. If you look at reg 4 for instance this is a good lead on the intention of the legislation - i.e. that if a fatality occurs within a year of an accident and that fatality was caused by the injury or injuries sustained in that accident then it is reportable [subject to reg 20]. Another good hint [as i understand it] with regard to enforcment [often overlooked] is the potential for prosecution within 6 months of the enforcer becoming aware of the breach - NOT as is often thought, within 6 months of the breach. So if it's a year later and they are then made aware, the 6 months 'clock' start ticking then. Yes it is reportable. I cleared all this up when i investigated the injury of an employee who had clocked off but was still on the premises - i took the opportunity to quiz my inspector on all maner of RIDDOR possibles. The RIDDOR 'people' are [or were] National Britannia, not the HSE.

Posted By Edward H The issue of the time limits for reporting delayed or undiscovered injuries is very clearly covered in Para 53 of L73 "A Guide to the RIDDOR..." [HSE publication]. Sensibly, it requires reporting as soon as the condition has been confirmed. I would extrapolate to suggest that the fact that Para 53 of L73 recognises that some injuries may be initially unrecognisable or they may be delayed, would cover the circumstances of the original posting and suggest that delayed injuries should be reported as soon as they pass the relevant reporting criteria [serious or >3 day]