Definatly report just be sure you are following the over 7 day incapacitation rule, put the details about returning to work the following day and try and get a file together in my experiance this kind of action from an employee usually smells of litigation. Synical after 10 short years of experiance! lol :) 

Hi

I logged the following with the HSE

Please could you advise regarding RIDDOR? If a member of staff goes off work for more than 7 days but not directly after the incident, ie there is a gap between the accident and date of sickness would this be reportable?

The response received was

Thank you for contacting the Health and Safety Executive with your enquiry regarding RIDDOR reporting

The Health and Safety Executive is tasked by Government to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of those in employment and those who may be affected by a work activity.  The legislation we enforce is the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the regulations associated with that Act.

Our role requires us to ensure that duty holders comply with the above legislation, however we do not prescribe in detail how that is achieved.  Because every undertaking is unique and diverse the onus is on the duty holder to ensure that they comply with current legislation.  Our website, www.hse.gov.uk, contains comprehensive health and safety information and guidance which, if followed by those in industry, will ensure that such duty holders achieve compliance with the relevant legislation.

This would not be reportable, as the IP remained working , therefore the causal chain has been broken and the incident falls outside the reporting criteria for RIDDOR.

Hope this helps

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

Originally Posted by: lynnet

This would not be reportable, as the IP remained working , therefore the causal chain has been broken and the incident falls outside the reporting criteria for RIDDOR.

I think this one sentence could reduce the amount of RIDDOR reports (not to mention RIDDOR questions on this forum) significantly if they were to publish this on the website

So is it or isn't it?

The response from the HSE is interesting but I believe this could be challenged under certain circumstances. There are many genuine situations where an IP may not realise they have a more serious injury than was originally thought at the time of the accident and continue working or return to work prematurely.

In any case, we still don't know what was the cause of the incident and whether it was caused by an unsafe condition or work process.

Well it makes sense to me - but maybe I am wrong. Here is how I see it:

What the HSE are saying is that for it to be RIDDOR it has to be absoloutely clear-cut that the injury (and the extent of the injury) happened at work as a direct result of the accident.

If the person carried on working then went home, etc. then then it cannot be clear that the injury and the extent of the injury was caused by the accident itself rather than the actions of the IP after the fact. The issue being that there was not an effective first aid procedure in place. Surely, we should be ensuring that people are being properly checked over after an accident?

If I got a puncture in my tire then carried on driving for a while before stopping, it is likely I would also danage my wheel rims. This damage was not the result of the puncture, but my failure to stop.

I take on board that not everyone who posts on here is a health and safety bod but why is it always the same type of question when it concerns RIDDOR. Surely people can read the regs and apply it to a situation.

Originally Posted by: safetyamateur

Originally Posted by: lynnet

This would not be reportable, as the IP remained working , therefore the causal

chain has been broken and the incident falls outside the reporting criteria for RIDDOR.

Someone remaining at work but not doing their full range of duties for more than 7 days would most definitely be reportable.

Also, the extent of an injury may not be apparent for some time.

Also, there could be all sorts of reasons why someone might soldier on (e.g. pending disciplinary for poor attendance, overtime).

HSE's response here makes no sense.

Why should the IP not receive adequate attention, advice or treatment following the accident? Are we not failing in our duty if we just assume that someone could carry on regardless with an injury after an accident and we just wouldn't know? Get them checked over by a professional. If we are reporting just in case then what we are doing is highlighting how inadequate our care of our workers is following and accident.

Originally Posted by: markwmansell

 Couldn't agree more as that's how I would see the HSE's response. I'm not sure I agree with the other posters on reporting 'just in case'. As long as you have applied due process and looked at the incident appropriately and can fully justify your decision then no issue. Although, recognizing if you have the competence to make that justification is key. If not then seek further advice on reporting.  I would never report a RIDDOR 'just in case'.

Only the OP seems to be in favour of reporting just in case...and was querying that approach regardless.  It is entirely plausible that a worker could work through their next shift after incurring an injury...albeit it is right to be skeptical and investigate prior to any consideration of reporting.

The reason you won't find this piece of advice on the HSE website is because there is no mention of a causal chain in the Regulations.  It's a helpful steer for an investigator and a good line of enquiry but there will be a number of exceptions deriving from competent opinion - be that of a medical professional or otherwise.  When balanced, if the evidence for reporting is stronger than for not, then a decision to report is not 'just in case'.

I don't wish to turn this thread into a bun fight, but clearly a worker could have a minor injury at work and carry on working, indeed they may not even report it. Later the injury could worsen and require medical treatment...it really is that simple. 

No bun fight Ray. I am just looking to clarify something that is, for me at least, a grey area. I am aware it can and does happen. But:

Where does the responsibility lie for allowing injured workers to continue to work? If they were to later make a claim would the fact that no proper evaluation of their injuries took place and they were allowed to continue working have an affect - and to the detriment of who: the employer or employee?

Who makes the decision to say whether they should continue to work or not?

If they have an injury at work, tell no-one and  don't record it, then it can't be reported as RIDDOR (?) at a later date as there is no evidence that it took place at work. For them to come back and say I can't come to work because I had an accident yesterday and injured myeslf but didn't report it, would surely weaken their claim for benefits, etc., if they were to try to make one?

Stonecold - with your foot. Do you think that you should have been made to seek medical advice before staying at/ returning to work?

Ok how about this scenario (it happened): An employee HAS o as part of their job to walk across a ploughed field (not on our site-someone else’s land). The ground is sodden and he slips and falls quiet heavily. He finishes his shift drives home and calls in sick the next day. He reports the accident and I record it as a workplace injury.  The RIDDOR clock starts but the alarm does not go off as he returns to work the following week-less than 7 days since the incident.  Six months later I get a call from our OH adviser.  The guy did not fully recover from his injury, but continued to soldier on relying on pain killers etc. He eventually went to his GP who referred him to hospital. After a thorough examination they conclude that the fall caused a persistent nagging injury which might have exacerbated an existing condition.  He now requires surgery.  Should I have reported this under RIDDOR?

He comes out of hospital and has to take a few weeks off work and then contacts a claims firm who send a load of bumpf about lack risk assessment and trying to get us to believe that the workplace reg 12 applies to farmland!   

I passed this onto our legal department who sorted something out.

I never bothered to report it as a RIDDOR. Will I go to jail?

Originally Posted by: Invictus

Originally Posted by: stonecold

Originally Posted by: RayRapp

I don't wish to turn this thread into a bun fight, but clearly a worker could have a minor injury at work and carry on working, indeed they may not even report it. Later the injury could worsen and require medical treatment...it really is that simple. 

Agree totally. I tripped at work once, hurt my foot/ ankle. Was well sore but I stayed on at work. 2 days later I realised I had a broken bone in my foot......

It still doesn't make it reportable.

A broken bone (depending on the bone) is a specified injury and reportable regardless of continuing to work.  Clearly it can only be reported once you know it is in fact broken.

I think everyone agrees that there has to be a causal link between an accident event and the “more than seven consecutive days not including the day of the accident” time off.

The reported HSE response implies that if there is a gap (even of a day?) between the accident event and the time off then the causal link is automatically lost. I believe that the posters are suggesting there are potential instances where the extent of an injury may not be known by the employer or even the employee immediately (also various pressures / commitment to keep working and say nothing exist).

The Regulations or published guidance does not state that the two events (accident event and more than 7-day time off) have to immediately follow with no break. Whereas in other areas of the legislation it specifies the no break element (ie non-employee taken immediately to hospital).

I’m fairly sure that the above type response has been posted previously by a different poster and am reasonably sure the response is genuine (and thanks for posting by the way). But until it is officially out there in the world, I think I would report if I consider there is an appropriate causal link to the work, even if there is a gap which I feel is valid.

However, the part of the HSE’s response which states: -

Our website, www.hse.gov.uk, contains comprehensive health and safety information and guidance which, if followed by those in industry, will ensure that such duty holders achieve compliance with the relevant legislation.

Is obviously not true due to the number of questions and the varying responses from people we know to be H&S Bods.

 “Our website, www.hse.gov.uk, contains comprehensive ……..” I thought we were to supposed keep humour to the social areas of the site.  :o)

Chris

WatsonD - I think you're asking a good question re: care for worker after accident but it isn't necessarily a relevant issue for RIDDOR.  I also think you're right about failing to report accident/injury and then claim one later weakens the case for reporting.  However, it doesn't automatically exclude it.  Investigate and then balance the evidence.  I think you'd be right to start from a very weighted position against their claim!

Also, Brian Hagyard - meant to specificially say hi on a different post.  We've met in IRL but I travel under a pseudonym on here.  All I'll say is I've taught you a couple of things about cooling towers. ;)

Firstly, RIDDOR only requires you to report accidents if they happen ‘out of or in connection with work’. The fact that there is an accident at work premises does not, in itself, mean that the accident is work-related – the work activity itself must contribute to the accident. An accident is ‘work-related’ if any of the following played a significant role:

• the way the work was carried out
• any machinery, plant, substances or equipment used for the work or
• the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened

_______________________________________________________________________________

We had conflicting info from HSE, first we had 'A' then when we queried this we received 'B' 

A) Accidents must be reported where they result in an employee or self-employed person being away from work, or unable to perform their normal work duties, for more than seven consecutive days as the result of their injury. This seven day period does not include the day of the accident, but does include weekends and rest days. The report must be made within 15 days of the accident. Unless the seven day period commences immediately after the day the incident occurs, then it is not reportable as the causal chain of immediacy has been broken.

B) As the result of further review this guidance has now been changed to the following: Reports must be made of an over-seven-day injury within 15 days of the accident. However, where the incapacitation does not immediately follow the day of the accident, e.g. because the condition does not become apparent until some time after the accident, the report should be made as soon as the injury or condition has incapacitated the worker for more than seven consecutive days.

Edited by user 06 January 2017 17:55:19(UTC)  | Reason: Typo