Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Probably been asked before, but I am interested in what counts as an accident at work. e.g. the worker who was walking up stairs to a canteen and ruptured a ligament in their leg, walking normally with no adverse input from the workplace.
When do we consider that some one injuring themselves in an ill health incident is not an accident at work?
Any answers?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In the every day sense, it doesn't matter. An accident has arisen, you'll want to keep a record and investigate to give you resilience against any future claim potential. Of more importance is the judgement on whether to report via RIDDOR, and considering whether the incident arose out of or in connection with work, etc.). Bearing in mind the purpose of RIDDOR (to gather data about trends to infrom future guidance, legislation or enforcement initiatives) then there are many accidents arising in the workplace which do not merit reporting. There are often wider considerations to be taken into account in circumstances such as you describe, such as the planning and staggering of lunch-breaks and break duration, and whether there is a custom of "stampede" up those stairs to the canteen to save time, make sure you get a seat, etc. I well remember a similar custom and practice in a previous workplace of mine - all essentially "designed" by the employer?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A work related injury occurs if it happened at work and/or arising from a work activity. So, the example you have given is a work related injury. BTW, it is not a criminal offence to have a work related injury per se.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
'at work' - Surely this means engaged in work activities, not at the workplace? i.e. activities which form part of the employee's work, or other activities they were engaged in for the benefit of their employer?
If the worker en route to the canteen had ceased their work and was simply going to a place where they could take a refreshment break, they were not at work?
I'd be grateful for the legal definition happy to be corrected in this.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The exact term to define a work-related injury is...'arising out of or connection with work', which is the definition of regulation 2(2)(c) of RIDDOR. This term is generally accepted by insurers and others in industry, although each individual case will be judged on its own merits.
Unless it is clear and obvious the person was not engaged in a work activity and not on the company premises, then it is a work-related accident - end of.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I read this post with interest yesterday, and couldn't agree that this injury was work related (based on the information given), so I looked up what the HSE had to say about defining an "accident". I found this, which is quite helpful. "What is meant by ‘arisen out of or be connected to the work activity’?
When deciding if the accident that led to a death or injury has arisen out of or is connected to work, the key questions are whether the accident was related to:
the way the work was carried out; any machinery, other plant, substances or equipment used for the work; and/or the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened.
If any of these factors did play a part in causing the accident, then the injury should be reported."
I don't believe there is any proof that this "incident" ocurred at work, or arose from a work related activity. This injury could've resulted from activities engaged in over the weekend.
Personally, I would investigate the circumstances surrounding this incident in a bit more depth, then record it for insurance purposes.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I and another LA Regulator have just taken and incident all the way up to the HSE Policy writers with regards L73 and the issue was indeed related to the test of 'connected to work or not' completely different circumstances to this one.
The HSE and other bodies agreed with my interpretation and not the regulators - its terribly written and extremely confusing.
I have developed my own form and I populate it with my own findings regarding the accident - if challenged in the future I can present my information to demonstrate why I concluded in this manner.
If you decide not to report and you can justify why you have not done so - most regulators would agree you have tried your best in trying to get to grips with L73.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I don't believe there is any proof that this "incident" occurred at work, or arose from a work related activity. This injury could've resulted from activities engaged in over the weekend.'
A bland and dangerous statement. The injured person may have had witnesses, not obvious from the original post, and the injury occurred on the premises ie 'arisen out of or be connected to the work activity’. It does what it says on the tin.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not the case Ray I'm afraid - the LA I was dealing with had the same opinion as yourself. You simply work through the factors provided in L73 and make a judgment.
34 The key factors are:
(a) ‘The manner of conducting an undertaking’.This refers to the way in which any work activity is being carried out for the purposes of an undertaking, including how it is organised, supervised or performed by an employer or any of their employees, or by a self-employed person, for example boxes spread across a walkway cause someone trying to get around them to be injured.
(b) ‘The plant or substances used for the purposes of the undertaking’.This includes lifts; air conditioning plant; any machinery, equipment or appliance; gas installations; and substances used in connection with the premises or with processes carried on there. One example would be somebody who enters a lift and trips and falls because the lift had not stopped level with the floor.
(c) ‘The condition of the premises used by the undertaking or of any part of them’. This includes the state of the structure or fabric of a building or outside area forming part of the premises and the state and design of floors, paving, stairs, lighting etc. For example, a building is being refurbished and a temporary wall collapses, injuring a passer-by.
Effect of ‘Arising out of or in connection with work’ on reporting accidents involving people not at work
You need to apply them and decide. Based on the incident and individual circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Is walking up stairs to have a break a work related activity? I have been involved in claims when staff have taken themselves to the workplace gym in break and lunch times and when injured we do not report to HSE, but we will keep a record and we will invetigate. They are not involved in a workplace activity they are carrying out an activity in the workplace. I believe that walking up and down stairs unless there is something a miss with the stairs that this wasn't in connection with work.
The injured person may have witnesses, or may not but we would always ask people in the area if they seen or heard anything.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
DP, thank for your informative post. However, I do not know what is L73?
My earlier post at #4 included a caveat which makes it clear that each case will be judged on its own merit. The general rule still applies as good sense.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
L73 is badly written, but is not as confusing as HSE education information sheet No1.
I have spent a lot of time getting clarification on similar incidents (including from the 'horse's mouth') and the incident walking up stairs is not reportable. ron hunter and others make valid points e.g. "what benefit is there to the HSE in getting such incidents reported to them"?
Similar confusion reigns in the education sector. However, if all sports injuries to pupils which result in hospital treatment were to be reported, there would be a mountain of useless information going through the RIDDOR online system (not mention that I would never have time to eat lunch again).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Still don't know what L73 is and whether it is an authoritive document. The original post did not ask whether the stairs injury was RIDDOR reportable, but was it a work-related injury?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
RayRapp wrote:The exact term to define a work-related injury is...'arising out of or connection with work', which is the definition of regulation 2(2)(c) of RIDDOR. This term is generally accepted by insurers and others in industry, although each individual case will be judged on its own merits.
Unless it is clear and obvious the person was not engaged in a work activity and not on the company premises, then it is a work-related accident - end of.
I usually agree with you Ray but not on this one. If the stairs were defective in any way (or didn't have a handrail for example) which contributed to the accident then it would be work related but if it was simply an accident arising from using stairs then it's not work related IMO.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks to DP I have reviewed L73 and appropriate guidance. I agree it is a very grey area and have seen nothing in the guidance which says that the injury was NOT work-related. Don't forget, I'm not saying it was RIDDOR reportable. Has anyone investigated the incident ie checked the stairs to see if they are unusually steep, a handrail is in place, or whatever? I don't really think this has any bearing on the matter...but just interested.
I propose the key wording in this instance is '...or connection with work'. If our unfortunate injured or hypothetical person was at work, he was presumably walking from where he was actually working to the canteen - hence is there not a 'connection with work'? If the injury made the difference between the IP getting company sick pay or not, would you deny them on the grounds that it was not a work-related injury? Surely not.
So Claire, my challenge to you is to prove me wrong - all in the best professional taste of course. :)>
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I am amazed that it would apppear that health and safety "professionals" are not aware of nor indeed read the HSE L73 . Disturbing indeed. Perhaps Lord Young had a meritous point ot two.
Jon
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Jon
Happy to reply to that criticism being that it was aimed at me. I have worked mostly in large oganisations where I am either not responsible for RIDDOR reporting or there was no RIDDORs on my watch - simples. That said, I am aware of many aspects of RIDDOR and I have have never felt the need to read the document, but if I did, you can be sure I have the nous to locate it.
Thanks for your constructive comments.
Ray
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ray - morning,
There is on one set of regs we can use to guide us to the decision on 'connected to work' however there are a 1000's of individual sick schemes base on many different company criteria. So that’s a difficult challenge you have set..
The fact here is nobody is wrong or right because it can be argued from another angle and it’s a matter of opinion:-
Employees
'Connected to work' - walking up a flight of stair hurts their leg - can be argued either way because they are at work but yet nothing wrong with the design or fabric of the building.
Persons not in work
'Connected to work' - walking up a flight of stairs between two store departments hurts their - can be argued either way as you invited them in the store to shop but yet nothing wrong with the design or fabric of the building.
I fully appreciate these are basic examples but I'm simply trying to get the point across - all I'm saying is in these cases investigate them make a sensible judgment record it and produce it if required in the future.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
John M wrote:I am amazed that it would apppear that health and safety "professionals" are not aware of nor indeed read the HSE L73 . Disturbing indeed. Perhaps Lord Young had a meritous point ot two.
Jon Seems a bit harsh to me John, maybe it's just me but I can't remember parrot fashion every HSE publication code, L73 didn't mean anything to me, if someone had said 'A guide to the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995' then I would have been in the know straight away. As to this grey area, I believe this would probably be a case of what is decided by the legal process, or by the decision of the insurance company should a claim be made. Personally I would carry out a thorough investigation and record it.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Many thanks for the interesting replies. The incident referred to was capable of being reported to the HSE due to the employee being off work for more than three days (currently!) However, on investigation, the stairs are perfectly serviceable with handrail and in compliance with building standards. The L73 Approved code of practice is indeed fuzzy. I considered this to be an ill health situation and the employee agrees that the injury had nothing to do with the work being carried out or in relation to the workplace.
I am grateful for you taking the time to comment, I am a Fire Service (Civilian) Safety Manager and as such I am inundated with this type of accident report. The latest this morning referred to a firefighter who suffered pain in the knee from no apparent cause.
I have also had a report relating to a riddor injury with an employee sustaining back pain from bending down on a first aid course to demonstrate the recovery position !! I have my hands full with this stuff ! Thanks again
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
John, I'm with Ken on this, you are too quick to judge. The term L73 did not immediately ring any bells with me, but I am familiar with the document under it's full name and have wrestled with some of the vaguer sections.
Just because someone is not particularly keen on code names or acronyms does not imply they have not done their home, just that their brains work differently to yours.
Nic
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We had an almost identical incident when a guy on his lunch break stepped through a bulkhead door and burst his achilles tendon. No slip / trip - just pop. He was offshore and on the accomodation barge and not on the same platform as his workplace but we still reported it to HSE.
IP was off work for 5 months and we accepted it as an unfortunate incident that could have happened anywhere but did so on the worksite. So appropriate sick pay etc was provided.
And Nikki - there was no way this injury could have happened somewhere else as the person coould hardly move!
David
|
|
|
|
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.