Posted By Brian Dawson It could be a reportable disease eg Nos 8 and 12 of Schedule 3 of RIDDOR provided it is linked with the specific work activities in the schedule but only if diagnosed in writing by a registered medical practitioner. Its not a reportable (3 day) injury unless it was caused by a specific accident.

Posted By Stuart Nagle RIDDOR states that injury absence over 3 days should be reported. If the chap has been signed off by a qualified medical practitioner due to the 'injury' then I would say that it's reportable. Whilst your own medical pratitioner may disagree that this is an 'injury' sustained at work, his view could be considered bias in favour of the employer. If there is any doubt the qualified opinion of an independant doctor (or specialist) may be the answer !! Stuart Nagle

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear all, RIDDOR Regulation 3(2)States "Subject to regulation 10, where a person at work is incapacitated for work of a kind which he might reasonably be expected to do, either under his contract of employment, or, if there is no such contract, in the normal course of his work, for more than three consecutive days (excluding the day of the accident but including any days which would not have been working days) because of an injury resulting from an accident arising out of or in connection with work (other than one reportable under paragraph (1)), the responsible person shall as soon as practicable and, in any event, within 10 days of the accident send a report thereof to the relevant enforcing authority on a form approved for the purposes of this regulation, unless within that period he makes a report thereof to the Executive by some other means so approved." Please note that the key phrases are: 1. ...where a person at work is incapacitated for work of a kind which he might reasonably be expected to do, either under his contract of employment, or, if there is no such contract, in the normal course of his work, ... This means that the person must be incapable of carrying out his/her normal duties, the person does not have to be off work. This applies to this case on the facts stated. 2. ...for more than three consecutive days (excluding the day of the accident but including any days which would not have been working days) ... This applies to this case on the facts stated. 3. ...because of an injury resulting from an accident arising out of or in connection with work (other than one reportable under paragraph (1)),...There must have been an accident, which caused the injury, and the injury must not have been previously notified. This does not apply to this case on the facts stated, as it was not the result of an accident. Therefore whilst points 1 and 2 apply, point 3 does not apply and therefore this case is not notifiable as a reportable injury as it was not the result of an accident. Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Robert K Lewis In the world of contracting where you are judged by your accident stats the insertion of grey area reports can distort the AIR and AFR. Such distortions may mean losing a job!! There will always be these uncertainties but for me I would prefer to make judgements rather than use a scatter gun of report everything. Having said that perhaps the odd spurious report in some work environments is unimportant as perhaps the number of RIDDOR reports is so high that it makes no difference to the overall rate!!! Tongue in cheek perhaps. Bob

Posted By peter gotch Marie, I agree entirely with Jay's sentiments that active monitoring is much more effective than reactive monitoring, ie counting the number of accidents (and/or AFRs, AIRs with or without an adjustment to eg HSE stats to allow for underreporting and hence enable more effective benchmarking) Our training for eg planning supervisors includes comment on the use of reactive stats. The most helpful are those for a contractor that read... Prosecutions - 0 Notices - 0 RIDDOR reportable - 0 ie Excellent? Conclusion, probably.... (a) They are lying or (b) They don't know they are supposed to report accidents.... if they don't know this what chance of managing other aspects of H&S? or (c) They haven't got any track record. Any of these answers probably indicates a lack of comptence, and at the least would indicate a need for further scrutiny. Unfortunately, our experience matches Bob's. In eg prequalification questionnaires there is far too much emphasis on reactive indicators. None of your respondents to date have answered another question. What is an accident. www.m-w.com defines this as Main Entry: ac·ci·dent Pronunciation: 'ak-s&-d&nt, -"dent; 'aks-d&nt Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin accident-, accidens nonessential quality, chance, from present participle of accidere to happen, from ad- + cadere to fall -- more at CHANCE Date: 14th century 1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE 2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought 3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance Words such as "event" do not necessarily connote something instant...a horserider might get injured in a 3 day event. Arguably an 8 hour shift, followed by injury (or exacerbation of a pre-existing condition) would constitute an accident resulting in injury. You can get prosecuted for not reporting. You cannot get prosecuted for overreporting. I am in the same camp as those who say "If in doubt, report" Peter

Posted By Robert K Lewis I certainly do wish that the proactive measures were looked at in more depth and with greater understanding. Unfortunately even the benchmarking for safety under the Construction Best Practice Programme uses the AIR as the KPI measure. In view of this what hope is there that it will not be used by clients and those advising them. A great deal of effort is put into managing safety within the construction industry but it is still bedevilled by 3 day and major accidents, particularly the 3 day. The fatality figure reflects this high level of other reportables. I have to date only had one questionnaire in the last 12 months which sought information on proactive measures. I too recognise the vast under-reporting but am not sure how an honest picture can be achieved. I personally would also like to see the AIR disappear as it is enourmously difficult to calculate in our industry. Over a period of one month a site may vary between 20 and 300 persons per day. How many employees is that on our pay? It is easy for the national figure as the total industry workforce is reasonably constant when totalled across all employers. Back on the original question I must admit to talking to my Head Office HSE contact and report, or not, on the basis of our discussion. Generally it seems they would wish to see some identifiable point in time event related to work as the initiating cause. Exacerbation of a non-work injury does not therefore qualify although the facts are perfectly true. There is I believe a need for employers to become much more active in the creation of a culture for safety both at work and at home. After all the valued employee is lost wherever the injury occurred. The separation of safety into two boxes will always create tensions. I could go on longer but that is for another day!! Bob

Posted By Nick Stokes As a Local Authority Enforcement Officer I would suggest that a notification be made under RIDDOR. Even though it may not be investigated, a routine inspection of the accident report book at some future HSE visit may well provoke some awkward questions if it went unreported.