Posted By Neil Pearson If you're wondering about the delay between the incident and going absent, that's not relevant. If the incident led to the over-3-day-absence, it's work-related, and you're the employer, then that's enough. If you want to check whether the incident DID lead to the absence, ask an occ health practitioner.

Posted By Paul L Williams Thanks Neil, I undertstand that the delay between the incident and going absent is not relevant. However my cynical feelings are that the employee used this as a way to get off a night shift for a week. Especially as he worked three days after the accident one of which was on overtime. Unfortunatedly for me the company is scored on reportable accidents not only internally but as an industry sector. This is why it is so important to report only the genuine incidents. I have had conversations with HSE Inspectors before about over 3 day reportable accidents, which were open to some interpretation and was told it those circumstances if we didn't report it then we should document the reasons why. Thanks Paul

Posted By David Mains I also get this a lot. You have to take the employees word for it and report it as a RIDDOR. The incident happened and they are now off as a result. It is important that you have followed the regulations as there is every likelihood that a claim may result. Obviously if you investigate the incident you may make reference to the timescales however I would be careful to only state facts and not opinions.

Posted By Jim Walker This is it or isn't it, almost daily conversation on this forum is a shame. Most of us are tied into a stupid situation where RIDDOR reporting is seen as a sign of failure. Given a free rein I would adopt an appoach of "if in doubt report". But like many of you out there the company would loose business. I guess this has arisen because the world of work demands numbers to crunch. HSE ought to review the whole issue. Can IOSH raise their awareness? Because the whole piont of RIDDOR (as I understand it) is being submerged.

Posted By Jeff Watt Paul I have had totally genuine soft tissue injuries take a day after the accident before any real pain set in with the individual but 3-4 days seems suspect to me. Bending over to pick up a pen can cause muscle injury or strain and it is difficult for OCN's or Doctors to call an injury as non genuine. There could be another injury/disease being coincidentally masked by this groin strain and the incident has accelerated this. But that's a lot of buts. Talk to your claim manager at the insurance company. They may say sounds dodgy but better for the case to report. Alternatively they may advise to not report if you feel stongly that this individual is not for real. Also worthwhile including HR if they have a good employee relations manager. I would go down the disciplinary route if I thought this guy was in breach of contract for not showing for work when fit. All very useful for the claim when it happens. You can still report and update your figures at a later date if the person proves to be disingenuous. We have had fellows too sick to work but not too sick to play football as the photos proved. Ultimately you have to balance the tension that all these possibilities create. Good luck with it all. Jeff

Posted By NeilM Poyznts-Powell The employee was involved in an incident, where a 'medical professional' has subsequently advised the employee that he has a an injury and should not work. This resulted in the employee been unable to work for over 3 days. Therefore, the employer has an explicit duty to report under RIDDOR. The main point in my mind is that the management within the organisation should concentrate on completing a comprehensive accident investigation to identify the root cause and any contributing factors to enable them to put in place controls, to prevent further harm (not just to defend a possible claim). In my opinion the setting and meeting of targets does have its place within a balanced management system and may be of importance to a given organisation or sector, but should not detract from the more important issue of controling hazards to prevent accidents happening in the first place or limiting their severity. Could it be that due to the need to meet targets the management, implicitly, pressured the employee to come into work, when he really should have rested his injury thus causing the injury to become more painful, leading to the visit to his doctor and subsequent time off work? If this were the case it may be the target that has manufactured an over 3-day incident! Regards, Neil