Posted By Rod Douglas My interpretation of the Regulations would be that if they were off work for more than three days due to an injury at work therefore I would infofm the HSE on a F2508 The Regulation states "In the event of an accident arising out of a work activity, which results in the incapacity of an employee (0r self employed person working on the premises)for more than than three consecutive days, then a report must be made within 10 days. Three consecutive days does not include the day of the accident, but includes: any day on which the person was unable to fulfil his/her NORMAL work duties week-end and days not normally worked when the injured person was incapacitated. I suggest the "Umbrella Method" always cover yourself. Rod D

Posted By Adrian Watson I agree with rod, whilst the strict interpretation is that you don't have to report it because it is not 3 consecutive days, I would because it is simpler to administer. Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Chris Abbott Had he/she not come back to work early (and perhaps aggravated the injury/illness), is it reasonably to say that it was likely that he/she would have been off for the consecutive period? If the answer is yes - Then I would report it. Sorry Jack, although I may agree with your argument, in this case it could argued that it was reasonably foreseeable that the person would have taken more than 3 days to recover. I would still report it. Chris

Posted By Jack Chris, I can't understand why you are so keen to report an accident which you seem to agree is not reportable. Why bring in some spurious argument about foreseeability to justify reporting it? I have never understood this 'if it's nearly reportable, report it' school of thought. What's the purpose. Shouldn't we as the competent person be advising our employers accurately. (I agree with Ken's point about capability to work)

Posted By Chris Abbott I perhaps did not make my point clear - sorry about that. It was my assessment that the person came back to work and was not fit to perform their job. Capability is absolutely right and in this instance - justifies my comments (I think anyway). You see, if a person takes 2 days off work after an incident/accident, comes back to work (clearly too early in this case - just an observation of mine) and then takes a further 2 days off to recover from the SAME incident/accident, then in my view it should be reported. My argument was not based on spurious assertions, it was based on the facts presented. It is not possible with our legislation to see everything in black and white. Given that the first thing many (not all) employees do once they've had an industrial accident is to make a claim. I can see it now... "I went to work, had an accident, had 2 days off but felt pressured to return... then went off for another 2 days.... etc.." Solicitor says.. "and to your knowledge, were the HSE informed?" I understand that in cases that are clear cut it's easy to make an informed un-objectionable opinion as to whether you follow legislation to the fullest - but I have seen many, many cases where the solicitor for the defences has argued "and we followed the legislation to the latter, m'lud". I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, I'm just saying that in "some cases" - like this one - I would make a considered opinion of the possibility of claim and therefore if it was reasonably foreseeable that this claim might occur, and it was close to the mark (say like 4 das off for the same incident/accident - with break) - I would report the accident to the HSE whether they chose to do anything about it or not. Of course I know that I'm making big assumptions without the full facts... hey-ho! Best, Chris