We have an employee who returned from sick absence yesterday. He claims he had an accident in April that has caused his absence. We were aware of a hand injury but he has, until now, never mentioned or claimed that his injury was caused at work.

Further to this, he claims he continued to work for 12 days after the accident before he went off sick.

Question is.... If an employee has an accident at work, but continues with his full range of duties, but is absent due to the injury at a later date, would this be reportable??

Thanks

Thanks for the reply.

The IP is a driver completing a store delivery. During the course of the delivery, a cage has rolled down the length of his trailer and struck his hand. He claims this has caused tendon and nerve damage in his right hand. He claims he did not report it at the time as he did not think it was a problem, but his condition gradually worsened over the following days until he became unable to work.

He is of course, now subject to a conduct investigation for failing to report a personal injury accident.

IMHO not reportable.

I would not even accept it as an accident after that length of time. In my experience of several top notch safety performing organisations, not reported at the time (or very soon after) = no accident. Period.

Nobody said its an admission of guilt. It is however an acknowledgment that the injury was caused by an accident at work which as we have ascertained cannot be demonstrated by the IP.

If you are happy to have every man and his dog coming up to you saying they have been injured at work 2 weeks ago but its all been fine up till now and then going on the sick for a month without a shred of evidence to support the claim then more fool you.

Not really.
You are investigating to establish the facts in order to ascertain whether there is a need to report.

As previously noted, even if the incident in question did occur at work the employee continued to work for a further 12 days, and if an injury occurs at work but fails to meet reporting criteria then at a later date is aggravated in a non work situation which results in an period of absence this does not suddenly make the initial accident reportable under RIDDOR.

Employee (lets call him Steve) limps into the office first thing in the morning.

"Hey i need to report an accident, I twisted my ankle in a pot hole in the car park this morning"

"okay I'll take some details and go have a look".

Steve goes home and we later that day find he has a broken bone in his ankle and will be off for at least 2 weeks

Later that day in the canteen two of Steve's colleagues are overheard.

" Ha did you see that tackle Steve got at 5 aside last night, he could hardly walk after that, I though he was going to puke he looked like he was in some serious pain"........ this is based on a true story although names have been changed to protect the identity of those involved...........

Point is if they are going to lie they will do it any way. The example above and the OP are both plausible work related injuries. Even if they did not report and made a claim against the company, the burden of proof still shifts to the employer.

Also you might miss an opportunity to prevent a similar accident if you don't investigate and you can always argue weather or not it happened at work at a later date if need be however, its always easier to gather evidence for that now rather than leave it to 3 years later when they eventually do decide to make a claim........

I would report it but I would also make sure I made it clear how long it took the employee to bring it to your attention