Without more details on the particular situation I would not log this. However, on principle as I see so many cases of skin problems that are attributed to the workplace that, when properly investigated, have quite different, non-occupational causes that I would be wary of listing anything until a proper investigation with diagnosis by a dermatologist has confirmed the true cause. Of course, if the dermatitis is then confirmed as occupational it is required to report this under RIDDOR. Note that the medical diagnosis almost always needs to be done by a properly briefed dermatologist who is experience in dealing with contact dermatitis. Many dermatologists (and the majority of GPs) are not. Chris

The (tricky) question is really: "Is it occupational?" Or rather, to what extent is it occupational? The most common form of contact dermatitis is irritant contact dermatitis. This is rarely to a single chemical, but as a result of repeated exposures to many different chemicals, frequently over a long period. These exposures will be both at work and away from work. As there is no real method of determining the contribution that each exposure to each irritant represents in terms of asymptomatic skin damage, this becomes a difficult and highly subjective matter. Essentially what a dermatologist will do is perform a patch test to establish whether there is any allergic reaction to any of the workplace chemicals (and this requires knowledge of the real chemical hazards - as opposed to what is on the label or safety data sheet - to ensure that the patch test is for the relevant chemicals). If there is no relevant positive from the patch test then the assumption is made that we are dealing with an irritant reaction - or possibly one due to some other cause. I have had someone who developed anaphylaxis if they merely thought that they were being exposed to a particular substance! Its called undifferentiated idiopathic somatoform anaphylaxis according to Prof. Gieler at the Department of Psychological Dermatology at Giessen University!) Assuming that we are dealing with an irritant reaction, we then have to decide (assess?) whether the workplace exposures are significant or whether this is a non-occupational condition. Very subjective and easy to get wrong! I have seen £50K paid out in compensation when a subsequent investigation showed clearly that the skin problem was non-occupational. Chris