An employee has been diagnosed with asthma from a work related process. He had asthma previously as a kid although was not showing any symptoms when he joined the company.

Independent doctor says the onset is due to work process.

Work doctor says not RIDDOR as it was a pre-existing condition.

I've never heard of this as a reason not to report, what do members think?

Steve...hear what you are saying but if you operate on that premise you would Report everything...it would have to be case by case and as we don't have the full employee history I would go with the Doctors recommendation.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/ri...ccupational-diseases.htm

Also meant to say the last time he had symptoms was as an 8 year old and he's now in his 40's.

When he was a child he did not have occupational asthma.
An expert says he now does.
How can it be pre -existing?

Sorry safety witch was you who said he was exposed it was the next posting.

Many years ago I discussed this topic with a leading immunologist. His comment was that if the childhood asthma had resolved itself and he had been free for a number of years, then the new outbreak was almost certainly due to recent sensitisation to something that probably had nothing to do with the childhood problem. However, the first step in dealing with this would need to be to conduct appropriate tests to establish what the causative substance was. It has happened that a case of asthma was assumed to be occupational. Subsequent tests showed that it was due to a non-occupational exposure. So reporting this on the assumption that it is occupational without at least at the same time commencing the proper clinical investigation could raise complex issues.

As many know, my major interest is in preventing occupational skin disease. The same principles apply.

Consider these two cases. 1. Diagnosed by the dermatologist as occupational allergic contact dermatitis due to formaldehyde in the workplace. Investigation revealed no exposure to the formaldehyde. Investigation finally revealed facial rash due to diet. 2. Diagnosis of occupational allergic contact dermatitis to nickel in a lady handling nickel plated components. Investigation revealed that none of the components she handled was releasing nickel, so diagnosis clinically accurate but occupationally irrelevant. Real cause was irritant contact dermatitis due to part time work as a hair stylist.

Chris