An employee was working in the property of a member of the public. A small ladder he was using fell onto the home owners foot and injured his toe. He had to have the tip of his toe amputated (did not amputate through bone). Is this RIDDOR reportable?

Thanks

Any work related accident in which a member of the public goes directly to hospital (by what ever means) is reportable under RIDDOR. The only exception to this is if the member of the public is advised to attend A&E only as a precaution by a medical professional.

Great thanks for the advice

I'm trying to find out if the IP went straight to hospital or went to his GP first:

1) if he went straight to hosiptal I will report as a RIDDOR

2)if he went to his GP first who then referred him to hospital straight away is this still a RIDDOR?

3) if he went to his GP and then went to the hospital the next day or a few days later is this a RIDDOR?

Ta

Thanks that clears things up

Originally Posted by: Zyggy

Re #6 I understand where you are coming from regarding the term " hospital" & the other places where treatment can take place, but as the term is enshrined in legislation, I for one will not be advising that such injuries are reported unless they are taken to a "hospital" otherwise where do you stop?

It will probably take a few test cases to bottom that one out but I would prefer not to be one of them so where treatment is required by a MOP I would report!!

In my experience, individual prosecutions for not reporting under RIDDOR are not common, but are often added to other breaches of legislation & any resulting fines tend to be low.

What is interesting is the term "work related" which causes much debate, especially on this Forum!

As an example, a previous employer of mine was prosecuted under RIDDOR for not reporting a situation where a "service "user" under our direct care was given the wrong medication; was sent immediately to hospital & received treatment.

However, the person who did not receive the medication also fell ill, was taken to hospital & was treated, but after much deliberation from the HSE, this was not deemed to be reportable!

Don't you just "love" RIDDOR...!

The meaning of words in legislation is not always the same as in everyday use. For example the term “street” in law does not just include the roadway and the pavements on either side but can also be interpreted as meaning any area generally accessible to the public for example a garage forecourt or the approach to at railway station. This interpretation has developed over the past century or so and is generally accepted. The meaning of the word hospital is really for the courts to interpret but they would look at things like the guidance issued by the HSE. Unfortunately this issue is rarely debated by the courts (if ever) so there is no case law to develop this. Taking an interpretive approach I would conclude that a treatment unit is “a hospital” but the HSE say; no, it isn’t.

And so RIDDOR continues to confuse and bamboozle us.

Me I’d still report the incident and remember the HSE might get to hear of it anyway and they will probably come along and ask why it wasn’t reported!

The HSE never advise anything and have some outstanding disclaimers in their publications e.g from INDG453.

This guidance is issued by the Health and Safety Executive. Following the guidance is not compulsory, unless specifically stated, and you are free to take other action. But if you do follow the guidance you will normally be doing enough to comply with the law. Health and safety inspectors seek to secure compliance with the law and may refer to this guidance.

"normally" infers there could be occassions where following the guidance is in breach of duty