Posted By John Allen A client of mine with offshore operations has noted an increase in the number of cases where an injury has been sustained and the cause has been identified as a pre-existing injury. In some cases the accident investigation has identified an improvement in the plant, equipment or system of work that could have been made so that it is arguable that even a fully fit person might have been injured. However in at least two cases there was no identifiable preventive measure and the examining doctor has stated that the injury could not have occurred to someone who was not carrying a pre-existing injury. I am sure our industry is not alone in having this problem. It is my experience that people want to work and will claim to be fit even if they are not. A medical examination is essential for work offshore however a large part of it consists of a questionnaire. If the answer to a particular question is no the Doctor is unlikely to take it further unless symptoms are obvious. An off the job injury can occur between medicals. In the offshore industry we also have an ageing workforce (average late 40s and rising) so the problem is likely to get worse in future. Until now the client has reported these under Riddor and within his internal reporting system. I am beginning to come to the view that the injury and its consequences should be allocated to the original incident even if that occurred while at a previous employer, but what about an off the job injury which recurs at work? In the offshore industry we report “domestic accidents” (such as slips in the shower) which occur on the installation but when the person is off duty. Where do we draw the line? I don’t expect hard and fast answers to these questions, I just wonder if others have had the same problem and if so what philosophy they have adopted?