Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Danny27  
#1 Posted : 27 September 2013 11:40:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Danny27

Hi Folks What are you thoughts on this? In June 2012 one of our engineers was working under a machine, as he crouched down he knelt on a bolt that was protruding about 10-15mm from the floor. He mentioned it to his line manager at the time but didn't think any more of it and didn't incur any lost time. As there was no sign of injury there was no accident report completed - it was captured as a near miss and the bolt removed. Fast forward to September 2012 and the engineer comes to see me and informs me that a couple of weeks after the accident he was on holiday abroad when he knee started to swell up and cause him discomfort. He was x-rayed and it was found that his kneecap was damaged - with what was described a 'dent' in the kneecap, not a fracture (still no lost time). Fast forward again to September 2013 and I've now learnt that he is going into hospital for an operation on his knee (apparently to repair the damage), this will result in him being absent for 4-8 weeks. It seems clear to me that it needs to be reported under RIDDOR but I've not been involved in an accident before where there has been such a long period between it actually happening and there being lost time. I am curious to hear your opinions. Thanks
Jim Tassell  
#2 Posted : 27 September 2013 13:04:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Jim Tassell

Hi Danny This is another example of the oddities of RIDDOR. If you are comfortable that there's a causal connection then it becomes a RIDDOR, even at this late stage, and by the sounds of it you have a good record trail behind you. The only suggestion I would make is to explain the chronology very clearly in the free text bit of the report to close off the question "why didn't you tell us sooner?". Arguably the late reporting clock has only just started ticking but it is an extreme "real world" situation. Expect a flow of Friday Afternoon Commentators from here on, who may disagree! Jim
Nicola Kemmery  
#3 Posted : 27 September 2013 15:57:11(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Nicola Kemmery

I think if you believe there is a true connection then you may want to report it - with the explanation. The interesting bit is the 3 month initila gap and whether there were other activities the IP undertook in that time (not work-related) that may have caused the damage!
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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.