Posted By Mike Draper This is a matter of curiosity, as all the reports are now filed but I wondered what others thought. A contractor working for us recently suffered an injury (as it happens on a Monday), a broken little toe. Clearly this in itself is not a major injury and therefore not reportable. However after receiving treatment at the nearest hospital to the workplace (there was a wound with the injury that needed to be cleaned and dressed) and taking a day's rest, the contractor developed a secondary infection that caused their foot to swell, preventing them from walking. This also received treatment but at the nearest hospital to the contractor's home, i.e a different hospital. By Friday, the contractor had not returned to work as the swelling was still painful and they had been advised to rest their foot, so the injury was reported on the Friday as an over 3-day injury. We have also advised the contractor (and I'm prepared to assist them) to write to the hospital that provided the initial treatment as a matter of concern over the secondary infection as this suggests that they have an issue to address. However the question is, do you agree? Should this have been reported under RIDDOR, or not? That is, would you consider the secondary infection to be simply sickness absence? Mike

Posted By STEVE Mike would the secondary infection have been there if the first injury had not happened , probabally not, how, who dealt with it is surely secondary, the employee didnt return to work, so I myself would of still reported, ok on injury stat reports does not give good reading but a covering note both to RIDDOR and in employee personal file explaining situation would, should assist. steve