Rank: New forum user 
|
Does anybody have access to a definition of a work related injury or illness which is clear and well defined?
At present the organisation im working for have a very ambigious description of the definition and it causes a lot of debate and uncertainty when reporting incidents?
Would be really helpful to see some alternative examples for consideration.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kris,
Reporting incidents or accidents to who?
Is this for internal reporting or to the authorities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
MB,
This would be for internal purposes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Kris, there are many different definitions, good, bad and indifferent to choose from. If you posted your present company's definition it would give us something to work with and no doubt elicit some (better)examples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Let me know what you think?
To be considered as a work-related injury or illness the condition must be linked to a work-related event. Spontaneous injuries or illness with no apparent cause shall not be considered work-related and be recorded as a non-work related illness.
Examples could include a person with an undisclosed (or unidentified) pre-existing condition (eg old back injury, hernia, damaged knee cartilage or ligaments, etc) experiencing an ‘injury’ while performing routine activities within accepted workplace guidelines which would otherwise have resulted in no harm to a worker in routine good health.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I really can't see a problem with the likes you describe if it's only for internal reporting methods.
It's up to the powers that be to make such a decision and up to individuals if they wish to challenge that with regards to duty of care, civil tort etc.
Alternatively if a pre existing condition has been made known to the employer and may have been exabated by the task/environment requested to carry out then again is a basis for civil tort consideration. On the other hand if unknown to the employer then they cannot assess and make reasonable adjustments?
Work related (or not) should always be challenged in it's context due to so many spurious claims etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kris, it sounds more like a caveat in order to avoid liability. My wording as follows:
A work related injury or illness - arising out of a work activity or connected with work. If an injury is found to be the result of pre-existing condition, it may negate any claim for a workplace injury unless it had been brought to the attention of management. In which case it could have been exacerbated by the workplace activity.
How the above would stand up in a court of law I could not say. However, it must be an improvement on your company's version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kris,
We use the "OSHA" i.e. USA regulatory system for Corporate reporting globally. It is more prescriptive ( and stringent!) compared to RIDDOR and has better description ( and official interpretations from OSHA!!!) regarding specific scenarios. Even then, in many cases, a judgement call has to be made and that is the crux of the issue. As long as you areconsistent in applying the criteria, you should be Okay.
OSHA recording :-Determination of work-relatedness. It includes some prescrptive exceptions too.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/...=STANDARDS&p_id=9636
Standard Interpretations for work-relatedness for OSHA recording:-
http://www.osha.gov/pls/...p;src_anchor_name=1904.5(a)&src_ex_doc_type=STANDARDS&src_unique_file=1904_0005
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.