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
anorak  
#1 Posted : 18 October 2012 10:41:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
anorak

Having just completed our first annual health surveillance programme we have found to have a couple of HAVS conditions diagnosed. I have reported one case but one of the guys developed the condition with his previous employer, has is employed as a van driver by us and has never used any vibrating power tools whilst employed by us. The regs state - When to report 77 Under regulation 5, the responsible person must make a report if: (a) they receive, in respect of an employee, a written diagnosis of one of the occupational diseases in Column 1 of Schedule 3, Part I made out by a doctor (for example a GP’s statement on a medical certificate); and (b) the ill employee’s current job involves the corresponding work activity specified in Column 2 of Schedule 3, Part I. So although he has been diagnosed with HAVS his work does not involve any work in the corresponding column so it would appear it does not have to be reported. Even so I feel it is the right thing to do to report it but do not wish to leave my company open to investigation or compensation claim. Morally or legally what is the right thing to do? Should I get in touch with his previous company and get them to report it? Has anyone been in this situation before and if so what did you do and what was the outcome?
Canopener  
#2 Posted : 18 October 2012 12:07:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

I would say that if BOTH criteria are not met then it is not reportable. The mere action of reporting a condition doesn't IMHO leave you open to a compensation claim. Either there is a valid claim or there isn't, a RIDDOR report shouldn't really make any material difference. It may well be a courtesy to let the previous employer know, but I doubt that they would have to report it (as this isn't their employee any more). Any other issues of liability for the injury etc is for them to sort.
Ron Hunter  
#3 Posted : 18 October 2012 12:53:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

I certainly wouldn't be reporting for the van driver and would further question why he is included in the surveillance program in the first place? I'd also be ensuring this diagnosis is confirmed by a registered medical practitioner. First-stage evaluation at the early stages of a health surveillance program doesn't usually involve much beyond a medical questionnaire, checked over by the occupational health nurse. No disrespect to anyone in the profession intended here, but RIDDOR is very specific about confirmation of the diagnosis of a reportable disease.
m  
#4 Posted : 18 October 2012 13:43:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
m

I would say do not report but I think the driver should be in the health surveillance program. Usually they are targeted towards whatever each employee is exposed to. I guess if the driver has to go along unmade roads everyday then he is going to be exposed to whole body vibration. Otherwise, for a driver, it is going to be a general checkup.
Kate  
#5 Posted : 18 October 2012 14:19:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

It doesn't meet the criteria, so I don't see why either you or the previous employer would report it (he isn't doing relevant work and he is not their employee). Agree that surveillance ought to continue as he has this as a pre-existing condition and there is a responsibility to prevent it getting worse.
Ron Hunter  
#6 Posted : 18 October 2012 16:22:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Kate wrote:
Agree that surveillance ought to continue as he has this as a pre-existing condition and there is a responsibility to prevent it getting worse.
But not for the van driver surely? In other respects, I wouldn't consider applying the non-binding EU WBV health surveillance criteria to van drivers. Nor is occupational health surveillance concerned with "general check ups"!
anorak  
#7 Posted : 18 October 2012 16:41:55(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
anorak

ron hunter wrote:
I certainly wouldn't be reporting for the van driver and would further question why he is included in the surveillance program in the first place? I'd also be ensuring this diagnosis is confirmed by a registered medical practitioner. First-stage evaluation at the early stages of a health surveillance program doesn't usually involve much beyond a medical questionnaire, checked over by the occupational health nurse. No disrespect to anyone in the profession intended here, but RIDDOR is very specific about confirmation of the diagnosis of a reportable disease.
We included all employees in this programme as it was our first, it allows us to draw a line under the ops who may have carried out some at risk work in the past. The diagnosis is from our occupational physician and he has confirmed the condition. Thanks all for the advice.
Ron Hunter  
#8 Posted : 18 October 2012 16:43:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Fair enough, anorak. That's a route my employer simply couldn't contemplate due to the number of employees. Health Surveillance isn't cheap!
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.