Question is would an employee be required to attend occupational health surveillance appointment if they have reported a case of dermatitis to an employer. COSHH assessment for product used which is claimed to have caused the dermatitis does not indicate any residual risk and therefore would not normally fall under health surveillance requirements. Company wishes to carry out skin surveillance and employee refuses. Any comments I'm sure would be helpful. Ali

If they do not wish to attend health surveilance can you attend their work place? If not diagnosed via Health Surveilance, was this diagnosed by their GP? It may be that their GP not in full posession of the acts have labelled it a work related incidence of dermatitis based on annecdotal evidence given by the employee who may have been in possession of all of the facts at the time of diagnosis. I would not report until you have completed a full investigation. But let them know, if you cannot investigate and find a cause, how can you prevent sysmptoms from getting worse? Des

It isn't quite as simple as many assume. Firstly the posting states that it is claimed a particular substance is responsible for the skin problem. Who is claiming this (presumably the employee) and on what basis? What type of skin problem are they claiming - irritant contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis or contact urticaria? If so, who made the diagnosis and on what basis? This is essential information if the problem is to be resolved. For example, managing a case of irritant contact dermatitis is quite different from managing a case of allergic contact dermatitis, and combinations of the two are particularly tricky. Assuming that a particular chemical is the cause is risky. All too often a proper diagnosis reveals that the particular chemical was not the true cause. I even had a case where investigation of occupational latex allergy and anaphylaxis was requested. The investigation revealed that even though the lady was sensitised to latex protein she was not allergic and the anaphylaxis was purely psychosomatic and not occupational! If the employee is making the claim and then refusing to attend for a proper assessment of the skin condition by a suitably qualified occupational health practitioner then there is little you can do to help them. In such an event they would have a problem in making a claim against the company, particularly since it would appear that there is no medical diagnosis. With regard to reporting under RIDDOR, this is only required if there is a diagnosis of occupational skin disease by a registered medical practitioner. Chris

Just wondering how GPs get the confidence to state that it's work-related. They know nothing/very little about someone's occupation.

From the information provided, is it not that the employee is looking to make a claim? If that is the case then pass it to the insurers and let them carry out the appropriate assessments under the investigation into the claim... In the mean time the employee needs to be removed from the exposure pending the results?

Des I have a saying, based on experience, that goes: "The danger arises . . . . when you don't know that you don't know" Something that I think we all need to keep in mind. Chris