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
Katie McKay  
#1 Posted : 08 February 2018 08:54:42(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Katie McKay

Hello,

There has been a recent incident at the workplace where an employee was struck to the shoulder by a revolving door when walking through it. Her shoulder has been badly brused and she has now been off work for 10 days.

The door has been checked post incident and the report shows there is no faults to the door. 

CCTV has also been viewed - It shows the employee was distracted by her phone.

Is this work related / RIDDOR reportable?

Thanks

Katie  

Charlie Brown  
#2 Posted : 08 February 2018 09:48:21(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Charlie Brown

It depends really. Was the IP working at the time or on her way to work?

If working then yes I think so as there was a determinable cause, i.e. she was distracted by her phone.

thanks 1 user thanked Charlie Brown for this useful post.
Katie McKay on 08/02/2018(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#3 Posted : 08 February 2018 10:34:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

This is similar to employees being distracted on the stairs by the mobile and falling down because they are not looking where they are going. Is it a RIDDOR? Is always being touch on the phone part of the job requirement. If so yes. If they are just nattering perhaps not.

Is it time we time we sortied out just what RIDDOR is for and decided who and what to report? Definably YES.  

thanks 2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
Charlie Brown on 08/02/2018(UTC), Katie McKay on 08/02/2018(UTC)
WatsonD  
#4 Posted : 08 February 2018 11:17:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
WatsonD

My concern would be putting in a RIDDOR report for an over 7 days injury, which is a bruise. Is this preventing her form working at all?

I take it you have a Drs note from her?

I may be doing the lady a disservice but 10 days is a very long time off for a bruised shoulder. I am surprised she cannot return to any form of work for this length of time.

thanks 1 user thanked WatsonD for this useful post.
Katie McKay on 08/02/2018(UTC)
Woolf13  
#5 Posted : 08 February 2018 12:43:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Woolf13

A RIDDOR report is required only when:

  1. the accident is work-related

  2. the accident results in an injury of a type which is reportable

If the answer to A. is yes, for example the revolving door is at work and she was at work when the accident took place (lunc time included) then it is reportable as you have already answered B with 10 days.

Over-seven-day injuries to workers are where an employee, or self-employed person, is away from work or unable to perform their normal work duties for more than seven consecutive days (not counting the day of the accident), but including weekends etc.

thanks 1 user thanked Woolf13 for this useful post.
Katie McKay on 08/02/2018(UTC)
biker1  
#6 Posted : 08 February 2018 12:51:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

I am no fan of revolving doors, particularly the automatic type, which I think are a really bad idea, and getting caught in them at some point is almost inevitable. Having said this, it does sound like a self-inflicted injury, and I think we should have an exemption from RIDDOR for cases where the basic cause was the IP having their face glued to their phone, a silly practice that really winds me up.

Just in case this person puts in a claim (and the fact that she has taken 10 days off for a bruised shoulder suggests she might), you might want to keep the CCTV footage available.

thanks 1 user thanked biker1 for this useful post.
Katie McKay on 08/02/2018(UTC)
Katie McKay  
#7 Posted : 08 February 2018 12:55:20(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Katie McKay

Thank you all so much for your response, all your comments are very helpful. 

The IP was in the workplace building on route to her actual area of work. 

The use of the mobile would not be part of her job roll, as they are not allowed pass security and are to be left in a locker. 

IP states that her shoulder is very painful therefore would be unable to come back to work and carry out her job roll.

Katie

fairlieg  
#8 Posted : 08 February 2018 13:25:47(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fairlieg

Originally Posted by: Katie McKay Go to Quoted Post

Thank you all so much for your response, all your comments are very helpful. 

The IP was in the workplace building on route to her actual area of work. 

The use of the mobile would not be part of her job roll, as they are not allowed pass security and are to be left in a locker. 

IP states that her shoulder is very painful therefore would be unable to come back to work and carry out her job roll.

Katie

I would record the incident in the accident log however, I am going to suggest that it is not work related because it is not arising out of or in connection with work, how its organised or supervised or the work environment.  There are circumstances where your would report if someone was in the workplace and were injured while not doing any work but the injury were due to the conditions or defects in the workplace (e.g. wet, slippy floor, uneven surfaces etc).

to quote the full part of the guidance posted above 

"Not all accidents need to be reported, a RIDDOR report is required only when:

■ the accident is work-related; and

■ it results in an injury of a type which is reportable (as listed under ‘Types of reportable injuries’).

When deciding if the accident that led to the death or injury is work-related, the key issues to consider are whether the accident was related to:

■ the way the work was organised, carried out or supervised;

■ any machinery, plant, substances or equipment used for work; and

■ the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened."

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg453.pdf

RIDDOR questions always bring about significant differences in opinion

Edited by user 08 February 2018 13:27:59(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 2 users thanked fairlieg for this useful post.
Katie McKay on 08/02/2018(UTC), watcher on 09/02/2018(UTC)
DNW  
#9 Posted : 08 February 2018 13:30:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
DNW

I think people get their knickers/boxers/y fronts in a twist too much about what is work related. Read the regulations instead of trying to interpret the HSE's guidance. Sometimes we have to have the guts (and the knowledge of course) to make a judgement ourselves, particularly where time off taken appears excessive, as it does here (this is a claim all day long in my view).

RIDDOR - Work-related accidents have to be attributable to: one or more of the following:

a)the manner of conducting an undertaking;

(b)the plant or substances used for the purposes of an undertaking; or

(c)the condition of the premises used for the purposes of an undertaking or any part of them

So what is the work-related undertaking? Is it walking? Is it using a phone whilst walking? Is it walking through a revolving door whilst using a phone? The only one of these in my view which could be considered a work related undertaking is using the phone, if it was a work related call. Walking and using a revolving door are something that we all do or could do when we go to the toilet at work, would that also be considered a work related undertaking?

Bear in mind also that the employee has a duty to look after her own health and safety. Was she in this instance? I would say no she wasn't as she was clearly distracted by her phone conversation.

I always ask myself two questions when considering a possible RIDDOR

Was the risk foreseeable?

Could we have implemented reasonably practicable control measures to prevent the injury?

In this instance my answer to both questions would be no.

I wouldn't report it.

thanks 1 user thanked DNW for this useful post.
Katie McKay on 08/02/2018(UTC)
Mr.Flibble2.0  
#10 Posted : 08 February 2018 13:33:04(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Mr.Flibble2.0

What goes around comes around....sorry had to get that out of the way.

You stated that the door was not defective in anyway so I would not report as RIDDOR regardless if they have 7 days off or not due to the accident not being 'Work related'.

thanks 2 users thanked Mr.Flibble2.0 for this useful post.
Katie McKay on 08/02/2018(UTC), andrewcl on 20/02/2018(UTC)
watcher  
#11 Posted : 09 February 2018 10:49:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
watcher

Originally Posted by: Woolf13 Go to Quoted Post

A RIDDOR report is required only when:

  1. the accident is work-related

  2. the accident results in an injury of a type which is reportable

If the answer to A. is yes, for example the revolving door is at work and she was at work when the accident took place (lunc time included) then it is reportable as you have already answered B with 10 days.

Over-seven-day injuries to workers are where an employee, or self-employed person, is away from work or unable to perform their normal work duties for more than seven consecutive days (not counting the day of the accident), but including weekends etc.

I disagree with this.

Fairlieg has explained why, far better than I could.  It's not work related, therefore not reportable.

Clark34486  
#12 Posted : 09 February 2018 10:59:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Clark34486

We had a discussion regarding this some time ago, always subjective. Scenario;

Multi-drop parcel delivery, IP was walking from office of delivery (public pavement), was not carrying any parcels (becuase he/ she had already delivered), tripped on kerb and dmaged ankle resulting in absence from work.

General concensus was not reportable due to not carrying anything. Does simply walking constitute a work activy even if it occurred during the working day

I'd tend to agree with that

As for OP, not reportable

hilary  
#13 Posted : 09 February 2018 11:14:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary

I think this scenario was not work related. There was no defect with the door, she was on her mobile which has to be left at security so clearly she was not physically at work and unless her work required her to go back and forth through this door, it is not work related.

The scenario above just referred to I should have said was work related. Although he had dropped his parcels off, getting the parcels to the drop off point and getting back to his van are a normal part of his work, a mandatory part of his work.  He doesn't drop parcels off then just walk off in the other direction, he needs to get back to his van, drive to the next drop off and deliver more parcels.  All this is his normal work routine and if he hurt his ankle in the process then it is work related.

Clark34486  
#14 Posted : 09 February 2018 11:21:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Clark34486

Injuries themselves, eg ‘feeling a sharp twinge’, are not accidents. There must be an identifiable external event that causes the injury, eg a falling object striking someone. Cumulative exposures to hazards, which eventually cause injury (eg repetitive lifting), are not classed as ‘accidents’ under RIDDOR.

What is meant by ‘work-related’?

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

Not reportable, seems fairly straight forward to me

thanks 1 user thanked Clark34486 for this useful post.
Andrew W Walker on 09/02/2018(UTC)
fairlieg  
#15 Posted : 09 February 2018 14:14:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fairlieg

Originally Posted by: hilary Go to Quoted Post

I think this scenario was not work related. There was no defect with the door, she was on her mobile which has to be left at security so clearly she was not physically at work and unless her work required her to go back and forth through this door, it is not work related.

The scenario above just referred to I should have said was work related. Although he had dropped his parcels off, getting the parcels to the drop off point and getting back to his van are a normal part of his work, a mandatory part of his work.  He doesn't drop parcels off then just walk off in the other direction, he needs to get back to his van, drive to the next drop off and deliver more parcels.  All this is his normal work routine and if he hurt his ankle in the process then it is work related.

I may well be wrong.... I usually am but I would suggest that Clark34486 would have concidered regulation 14 (3)(c) exemptions relating to vehicles on a road? (assuming the intention of the regulations is a public road)  

Restrictions on the application of regulations 4 to 10

14.—(3) Where the injury or death of a person arises out of or in connection with the movement of a vehicle on a road, the requirements of regulations 4, 5, 6 and 12(1)(b) do not apply, unless that person—

(a)was injured or killed by an accident involving a train;

(b)was injured or killed by exposure to a substance being conveyed by the vehicle;

(c)was engaged in work connected with the loading or unloading of any article or substance onto or off the vehicle at the time of the accident, or was injured or killed by the activities of another person who was so engaged; or

(d)was engaged in, or was injured or killed by the activities of another person who was at the time of the accident engaged in, work on or alongside a road.

Citizengas  
#16 Posted : 09 February 2018 16:14:37(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Citizengas

We have had a very similar incident this week. one of our operatives slipped while getting into the van at work, he hit his chest on the seat and was in a great deal of pain. He went to see his GP and was told he had cracked a rib and was given some painkillers. The IP was back in work, carrying out his normal role, the following day. 

Obviously a cracked rib is a "specified injury" but as there is no lost time, the IP was wearing safety boots with good tread left on them, the van step is not damaged or defective in any way, his foot slipped because it was raining heavily, is this a reportable incident?

Bigmac1  
#17 Posted : 09 February 2018 17:32:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bigmac1

Absolutely, definately, 100%, not a work related accident. Not RIDDOR reportable, not applicable for compensation, no breach of any H&S legislation what so ever. No investigation, in fact not worth even of discussion. 

georgiaredmayne  
#18 Posted : 09 February 2018 17:59:02(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
georgiaredmayne

Originally Posted by: Bigmac1 Go to Quoted Post
Absolutely, definately, 100%, not a work related accident. Not RIDDOR reportable, not applicable for compensation, no breach of any H&S legislation what so ever. No investigation, in fact not worth even of discussion.
Apart from stop staring at a screen and look where you are going... I agree definitely not RIDDOR reportable just because it happened at work and whilst the IP was at work does not make it reportable. Look up ‘work related’ and read the guidance freely available.
Users browsing this topic
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.