I would say that it is still a reportable injury. The basis for this is that on the day of the accident, records (i.e accident book entry) etc will have be evidence of the accident occurring within the workplace. As the incident could be linked to the resulting injury, which then prevents the injured party from being at work, this should be reported, as all the available evidence will show and accident occurred, a person was referred for medical attention and in the ensuing weeks thereafter the injury manifested itself to an extent where the IP could not attend work. However, consideration should also be given and the IP consulted as to whether the injury affects their normal day-to-day job, or whether a different job can be given on a temporary basis which can allow the IP to come to work. This is by no means an attempt to disguise or prevent a Reportable injury, but to give the IP the support of the business to come to work, as in some cases from experience, people take time off as they couldn't fulfil their normal role, however had another role be offered temporarily whilst they recovered, they would welcome the opportunity to return to work.

Just to stir the pot ... Could you clarify what you mean by 'subsequently'. I would want to establish that it was a direct consequence of work.

I have had many similar situations re time spans between date of incident & no time lost for a period of time, usually associated with MSD's, e.g. IP hurts back moving something; trys valiantly to "work it off"; fails & is then forced to take time off. Accordingly, in my opinion, if they are then off for > 3 days (soon to be 7!), then it is reportable.