I know this subject comes up a lot, but I have a weird one here that hopefully I can get some resolution on because I really don't know.

A guy at work managed to shoot a 3" nail using a nailgun across the fleshy part of his palm just below the fingers. He went to the hospital and they removed it and made an appointment for him to see a specialist. He was in work the next day but had an appointment with the specialist some 25 miles away. He was back at work the following working day (Monday) for a progress report, the hand was healing, there was no limit of movement, he could squeeze his hand closed and flex it open. There was no redness to indicate any infection and there was a small puncture wound.

He then went to the specialist who cut his hand open to check there was no nerve or tendon damage which there wasn't and he had 10 stitches! The hand is now sore, inflamed and he is in terrible pain. I do not know quite why they cut his hand open - it seems a peculiar thing to do, especially as it proved totally unnecessary to the accident.

Is this a recordable accident if he is now off for 7 days following their intervention, despite being able to work immediately after the accident?

We have not got to 7 days yet, but your input would be helpful as, frankly, I haven't a clue. I am assuming yes, but it's not one I have any experience of.

Help please

It's not very clear in the regs - as it doesn't (to my knowledge) mention delayed lost time however I would say...

Yes
As the time off is linked to the original incident...

Also the wording of RIDDOR for >7 day injuries - is not time off work - but time spent unable to do normal work task!

I guess he is unable to carry out his normal duties? Therefore reportable
If he is and it leads to treatment that requires >7 days off, then also reportable in my opinion

I had one where a guy hurt his shoulder lifting, a year later he had to have surgery to correct the odd lump that appeared a week after the incident - after much discussion with insurers and the HSE this was reported.

Oh forget that, obviously we report - senior moment (it's doing my head in to be honest)

He would have been able to conduct his normal activities within a couple of days had it not been for the hospital cutting his hand open.

Its the responsibility of the employer to report - but you can report on their behalf.

http://www.legislation.g...5/3163/regulation/2/made
Scroll down about half way to definition of responsible person - parts b) and c)



@Graham - whilst I agree to some extent - this treatment is linked to the original incident and the person would not be off work had it not been for this. Also if invasive action had discovered damage to tendons caused by original incident then it would be reportable?
It's all too easy for us to 'blame' a medical professional for making a 'bad' call, but had they not the outcome might have been potentially worse?
if it believed this treatment was not necessary that should be raised as a separate complaint - but that does not influence the decision to report IMHO

When dealing with things like this - I have always discussed with insurers and directors and made a decision based on facts at hand. I have reported some - and not others, but have always had justification for my decision.
Every case is different!

Graham, there is Case Law on this, but I can't remember the details. I seem to recall that somebody fell off a ladder and visited hospital and was treated. The treatment caused a much more serious condition than the original injury, but nonetheless the fault was laid at the door of the employer, as the injured party would not have had an adverse reaction to the treatment had it not been for the original injury. In other words, there's a chain of causation here; the time off may have an iatrogenic cause, but the root cause remains the original injury. This incident is reportable,

John

This topic has been up for debate in previous post, generally the company that puts the individual to work should report it, as they agency supply the labour, they dont put them to work, so in my opinion the agency would not report.

Peter - I can see where you're coming from there. However; the accident/ injury was caused by the IP shooting themselves in the hand with a nail gun. The injury was only exacerbated by the medical procedure. Therefore, I'm with JWK and others on this.