I agree, he was at work - got up out of his chair, you need to report it. I would suggest that on his return you consider having a full DSE assessment carried out - to ensure that his chair is good, and that he understands the need for regular breaks to change position - getting up to go to photocopier etc!

Okay here is my input

The HSE guidelines on reporting a RIDDOR state as an example

"A person fainted and as a precaution they were taken to hospital.

No. The injury must result from an accident that arises out of or is connected to the work. This is not usually the case where people have been taken ill."

substitute "fainted" for "hurt back" and where is the difference?

I think that if you did not report it BUT put in your accident report why you could then challenge any inspector who felt that you should have done so.

If they had been any factors re DSE or previous activity such as moving filing cabinets that could have been a contributory factor then I would have reported it.

hope this helps

Ian

For those in the "yes" camp, would you like to respond to the comments made by Ron Hunter & myself as to why RIDDOR was introduced in the first place?

If you ask yourself this question, then the answer to the original posting is much clearer!

Zyggy

Sorry firesafety

A workplace injury in my book and hence reportable - arising from or in connection with a workplace activity. If the guy was a mechanic and working on a car and stood up would it be deemed a workplace injury - yes, of course it would. So, why should it be any different to a workstation?

Excellent point. I'm (recently) taking a much more thorough look at accidents which I would previously have automatically reported. I always err on the side of reporting, but given that EL insurers seem to pay out at the drop of a hat I'm hoping a reasoned record of why something has been deemed not "arising out of, etc" will help any persuading we attempt to change this situation. I'm probably hopelessly naive in that, but you gotta have a dream!

It doesn't matter whether he's a mechanic, an office worker or a ballet dancer. There has to be a causative effect to determine its work related.
The country has an aging workforce, thats a fact, so the tweaks and twinges we all feel as we get older will innevetibly appear more in the workplace. If the work/workplace does not cause this and no adjustments are made why would you record it as a work related accident?

Ask yourself this question from another angle.

'Would you want your insurers to pay out in the event of a claim being recieved'?

Yesterday I was at my desk and I leaned forward, not far, and felt a sharp pain in the bottom of my back. The chair is ok, the height of my lap top is ok, everything is within easy reach and there is plenty of room for me to work.

I was in quite a bit of pain- had I not "soldiered on" and gone home, as I get paid ;-) and had more than three days off would I have to report my own RIDDOR??

I am in the not reportable camp. I don't see standing up or leaning forward, in these incidents, as being in connection with work.

At my last place an accident was reported under RIDDOR for a guy who walked into a girder and banged his head. Its was painted yellow and black and he had walked past it every shift for over 10 years. On this occasion he was talking to his mate and not looking where he was going. Work related? I think not.

Andy

No incidents should not be replaced by accidents.

A carer having been injured through an assault by a person in their care for example, would be reportable, if the conditions of reporting were met, but no accident had taken place.

Ok first to the question what do you think RIDDOR was originally written for? Well one of the things was to report injury’s that cause people to be off work more than 3 days not including the day of the incident, if the injury is “arising out of in connection with work”

So that aside for the moment, the question is :- has the person suffered an injury ? The answer seems to be yes and confirmed by a doctor signing him not fit for work.

Next question, if it was work related should it be reported ? The answer to this also seems to be yes see the HSE guidance ( link provided) an extract below from FAQ section, saying that if the injury last more than 3 days report it

From the HSE web site http://www.hse.gov.uk/msd/faq-general.htm

Are MSDs reportable under RIDDOR

Answer: MSDs are only reportable if they lead to a major injury or result in absence lasting more than 3 working days and they should be reported as such in the normal way
Next question where is the link between the injury and the work carried out by the person ? Well it seems from the HSE publication INDG36 it links the use of computers to possible back problems. (extract and references below)

From INDG36(rev3) 07/11

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg36.pdf

Are aches and pains caused by using a VDU? What about ‘RSI’?

Some users may get aches and pains in their hands, wrists, arms, neck, shoulders
or back, especially after long periods of uninterrupted VDU work. ‘Repetitive strain
injury’ (RSI) has become a popular term for these aches, pains and disorders, but
can be misleading - it means different things to different people. A better medical
name for this whole group of conditions is ‘upper limb disorders’. Usually
these disorders do not last, but in a few cases they may become persistent or
even disabling

So we now have a possible link between back pain / strain to the work that the employee carries out and guidance stating it should be reported. It fits in with one of the original purposes of RIDDOR.
But I hear you cry, there was a workplace assessment and everything was ok. Well was it ? Really ? Was it done by a qualified ergonomist ? Ok say the assessment was faultless, The employee has not been interviewed, so some of the questions to him are:- had you adjusted your chair properly, were you slouching, did you use a document holder when transcribing onto the computer etc. If the answer is yes do you really believe, often the only adjustment I see people make is the seat height (then you get someone else come along and mess with it). Was there boxes of files under the desk that made them sit awkward etc etc. Even if they were to answer yes (do you really believe them), could someone have altered their seat. Yes you do also ask if they had just laid a patio on the weekend.

But again if the answers are yes and you believe the person, the guidance I referred to in a previous post says there does not have to be anything wrong with the workplace setup, and no one at fault for it to still be reportable.

So can the NO camp still not see why some of us are saying yes and still see no possible link.

Do I think that things should be reported just because it happened in the workplace - No, but if there is some reasonable link the working activity then yes. Every case needs a proper assessment before deciding one way or another. Would the HSE come down on you like a ton of bricks for not reporting this when it should be, no they have bigger problems, but I would hope they wouldn't giggle about it. Perhaps if they get enough reports of this nature, they may provide further guidance.

PS I do agree with Pete 48 where he says “It is only by discussing such cases that we have any chance to reach a consensus”. Although I suspect that consensus will not be reached, I do feel a calm debate is good.

Now that's rich is it not - "Officers simply do not have the time to address incidents at this level" says it all really. We do not have all the facts related to the incident or the outcome of any investigation. Next time an officer asks why I did not report this level of incident will I get away with with stating I simply did not have the time to address incidents at this level?

I don't think it is reportable.

1. It wasn't an accident arising in connection with work (he was at work, but the accident was not caused by something at work)
2. No defective premises or equipment.
3. No wrongful act by a member of the workforce.

Just my tuppence worth.

If an employee suffered a 3-day injury in an accident while doing anything at all on our premises, I would report.

P48 - that’s the point of the no camp in this particular case there is no evidence to suggest this is a reportable matter and you are correct.

I have posted this before and I think that there is mileage in it - many people don’t even consider L73 when making a decision to report accidents they refer back to their NGC training and if its over three days lost for something that happened at work or if a MOP goes to the hospital post an accident then its reportable. They don’t consider any further.

They are taught this!!! Its understandable they are steered this way……………..

A poster on another tread noted the other week (I forget their name) and they had a point, its working with and having regular experience of L73 that helps you understand it more. That’s the case with myself - I use it frequently………..

I appreciate this thread had gone in a few directions already but it would be interesting throw into the mix - are the no camp from bigger organisations and the yes from smaller where perhaps where they have fewer accidents………….

Regulators who have posted no - clearly have much experience with RIDDOR which sort of supports it.

Can anybody in the yes camp answer the question as to whethe they would recommend their insurer pay out on this?

Its not RIDDOR reportable as not in connection with work activity is not the same as being at work.

In what way were they inadequate?

Ray,

It's all fictitious until investigated so do you report now or on return of the IP?
As I originally said no changes to job or workplace so are you paying out? Would you report the heart attack after all work at a pc is sedentary and liable to lead to unfit staff?

You would think it would be a safe bet that if you put in a post like "Guy stands up from his chair and strains his back" and asked if it was RIDDOR , you would not get over 2000 views and 80 replies.

If this is representative of the UK safety community I think we may need something like this from OSHA http://www.osha.gov/reco...book/index.html#1904.5_2

redken

thanks for the link. Love the term "work-relatedness" is that a real word or US speak!