Person lost her footing whilst dragging a tarpaulin over uneven ground, she lands awkwardly resulting in some discomfort in her lower back but she carries on working for the remainder of the shift. She remains available for work for a further 18 days before taking one week annual leave.   When she returns from leave she goes on restricted duties as her back / leg still hurts and states its as a result of the incident which occurred almost a month earlier.

 Reg 4 states:

Where any person at work is incapacitated for routine work for more than seven consecutive days (excluding the day of the accident) because of an injury resulting from an accident arising out of or in connection with that work, the responsible person must send a report to the relevant enforcing authority in an approved manner as soon as practicable and in any event within 15 days of the accident.

 I have my views on whether this is reportable under RIDDOR and welcome guidance / comments before I make a final decision.

 RIDDOR Yes or No?

Rachael

As with virtually every RIDDOR question ever asked/discussed on this forum, you're likely to get conflicting replies because I think we pretty much all agree that the RIDDOR Regs are badly written (and at times in conflict with themselves!).  To put it another way, if the Regs were well written, we'd all know exactly what to report and what not to report wouldn't we ?

In your particular instance (as with many others !), there's an argument for and an argument against reporting.  Firstly, I assume that the accident was "work related" in the strictest sense (ie the person was doing something that they should have been doing, and in the manner in which the task should have been done) ?

You have also used the words that she "remains available for work for a further 18 days before taking one week annual leave".  When you say that she "remained available for work" does that mean that she DID work, or was just "available" for work (..but not required to work) ? 

With regard to the person who had the accident, there's always the question of motives - she could be genuine, angling towards a PI claim or simply an opportunist who sees a way of getting out of work for a while - who knows.

The argument for RIDDOR is that a work related accident has occurred which has (albeit eventually) led to the person "needing" to go onto light duties.  To the letter of the law, this makes it RIDDOR reportable.

However (and especially if she DID work for the 18 days plus one week annual leave), AND if it's only a self-imposed "can't do my normal job" rather than medically certified, you could argue that further investigation (and perhaps a medical ?) is needed before reporting.

Personally (and particularly if you're confident that your systems will stand up to scrutiny), I think I'd report, but I'd make my thoughts and feelings clear on the report form.  Late reporting in situations such as this one wouldn't be frowned upon so long as you have a good explanation for it (which you appear to have given the circumstances). 

Just my thoughts for what they're worth...

Whether the RIDDOR regs are badly written or not, I don't think its debatable.

It is not RIDDOR because the causal chain has been broken.

There may have been events in the past 3 weeks that have caused a minor injury to become a major, which in itself is not a direct result of the initial injury.

Edited by user 06 February 2018 13:24:05(UTC)  | Reason: Grammar

If the injured person went back to normal duties, this is absolutely NOT reportable. I think the word 'consectutive' is the clue here. However, if they haven't been able to carry out their normal duties in that period, then the HSE should have been notified.

If the lady had actually worked for the 18 days then gone off on medical grounds for over the 7 days I would most likely RIDDOR it, but as she had been at work then on holiday, the question is what has she done whilst on holiday which could well have aggravated the orignial ingury, so I wouldn't report it.

We had an employee report that she tripped and fell down the stairs, hurting her back. I investigated and found that a tread on the stairs had come loose and she showed me a bruise on her arm that she said was caused in the accident so in all likelyhood she was making a genuine report.

She continued to work for a week and then went to her GP who told her to take some time off, which she did, 2 weeks in fact.

We didn't think this was reportable since the incident had happened 1 week previously but when I was having a casual conversation with a HSE inspector she said it actually should have been reported as the injury was directly related to the time off.

Originally Posted by: Hsquared14

I would ask for a medically diagnosed injury to determine if it is reportable or not.  If there is no medically diagnosable injury then there is nothing to link her current condition to the incident which occurred previously.   I agree with everyone else too that the RIDDOR regs are one of the most poorly written and unclear pieces of legislation in the history of UK law and need to be scrapped and redone logically and based on sound medical trauma descriptions.

Originally Posted by: Cooper103721

If the lady had actually worked for the 18 days then gone off on medical grounds for over the 7 days I would most likely RIDDOR it, but as she had been at work then on holiday, the question is what has she done whilst on holiday which could well have aggravated the orignial ingury, so I wouldn't report it.

The OP didn't say "at work" the term used was "available for work" making 25 consecutive days between the day of the incident and the light duties.

Having a planned vacation period does not necessarily mean the IP went on holiday or did anything new to aggravate an injury - they may have spent the full period recovering to a point where they could return on light duties