Not an easy one to answer, this. Scenario: A project manager (PM) was walking around site and trod on a nail. No real damage to his foot, but the nail did pierce the skin. He thought nothing of it and went about his business. The incident was not reported. Four or five weeks later he felt poorly, to the extent where he was administered to hospital. It transpires he has diabetes (unknown to his employers) and he had developed blood poisoning. The wound in his foot is now an open one, and he is expected to be off for over two months. Now, in absence of medical diagnosis to say it was the nail in the foot that caused the illness, I can't imagine it could be put down as a work-related injury. The injury could have been excacerbated by his condition, rather than the other way about. Or... it could be a combination of both. Anyone got any thoughts on this? PS. Don't tell me the company should have been aware of his condition by sending out a health questionnaire, as I already know this! The fella has been with the company for many years (i.e. before such things were done).

Having spent most of my working life in this profession I’m a little concerned about some of your remarks. Firstly, your PM should have reported this, as I’m sure you are aware. This highlighted a potential housekeeping issue that could have occurred again to another person. Secondly, where was the puncture in his foot and do you have a mandatory policy requirement for steel mid-sole safety footwear? If he knew he had a medical condition, that could affect his work, he obviously should have told his employer. Conversely many employers’ carryout regular health questionnaires throughout an employee’s career, this is common even in the construction industry, so I personally do not accept that due to a long career excuses deficiencies by the employer. I would imagine that if you investigated this a lot of the evidence would be in verbal format from the PM, so how can you be sure that this injury occurred when it did? I would certainly look at your policy and procedures with a view to review/revising the system, as it does seem weak in certain areas. As for the PM I think his line manager should speak to him regarding his conduct for failing to report his injury.

I think it would be I'm afraid. The fact is he did injure himself and it caused blood poisoning from the injury seems straight forward enough. I have looked at the RIDDOR regulations and they dont really consider a situation where the person suffers sometime after the event - though with muscular type injuries that is common enough. However it does of course look at lost time and does not directly specify directly after the injury IMO. Are you worried about a claim or is it the RIDDOR aspect? If it is the former the fact you were not aware he was diabetic is an issue - playing devils advocate the opposition could argue that whilst he may not have done a pre-employment many years ago perhaps as a company driver/site worker, there may/should have been some occupational health intervention - even just an annual baseline check. Had he had a hypo at work? but then in defence he may still not have told you - some emplolyees do for some reason. An interesting question and one I do not think there is a definitive answer to.

Thanks for the responses. I should clarify an important point... The individual was sent out a medical questionnaire, but filling these out is not mandatory, and he never sent it back. Therefore, the company was not aware of his condition. My view is that, absent conclusive proof that the nail caused the blood poisoning, the assertion that it did is pure hearsay. This is compounded by the fact that it was not reported at the time. The company procedures are well known and written down, so there was no excuse not to report. The company's prime concern is the individual. He's been with them for many years, and it's not a large firm so there's a close-knit bond between them. The issue that concerned me from an action point of view is, first of all, did it need to be reported under RIDDOR? I say, based on the facts in front of me as it stands, no. Even with conclusive proof that it was a foreign body entering the foot that caused the blood poisoning, the absence of an accident report from site (i.e. a contemporaneous record) documenting the incident is problematic*. Again, thanks for your musings and thoughts. * - Assuming he wishes to claim for injury.

Just going back to the original posting. I have a family history of both type 1 and 2 diabetes. Any wound no matter how minor to the feet, ankles, etc is taken very, very seriously due to the potential for ulceration and the very slow healing time. If the PM knew he had diabetes at the time I would have thought that it was most unlikely that he would have thought nothing of a wound to his foot. Kevin