Posted By Jason911
Say we hyperthectically had a employee with a legal claim against us for a manual handling injury which is very dubious to say the least. They have now returned to work and have been assigned a different job involving no more M/H than preparing a meal in your own home. However they have returned with another note from their doctor saying that this job also involves too much M/H!!

Lets just say for argument sake this is a sham. An employee can easily fool a G.P with these type of injury claims and no medical procedure will disprove it, but what can we do? If the employee can't even do these simple tasks why should we create a desk job for them that does not exist, which is what they are essentially angling for. Do we have to send them home on full pay in the same way as an expectant mother because no suitable job exists? Surely not!

Jay

Posted By James M
Remember the phrase reasonably practicable. Have you given the doctor a job description for this person. How do you know what he has told the doctor is factual?

I would also look at employing an investigator to gather out of work evidence for you. This can be priceless in any claims are likely, which may be the case from the information given.

If you have done all you reasonably can sack him after gathering the evidence first.

There are too many companies that give in too easily to these work shy no gooders.

Posted By Philip McAleenan
Jay,

Not withstanding that this scenario is hypothetical, why should it include an assumption that GPs are not competent to make a diagnosis of their patients.

I work alongside many GPs and "being easily fooled" is not something that springs to mind.

There are many within the safety profession who rightly take umbrage when their profession is denigrated and yet on far too many instances in this forum other professions are denigrated, here the doctor who is easily fooled, there the solicitor who chases ambulances, in other cases managers who are deemed incapable of managing OSH.

Your hypothetical situation also begins with the assumption that the employee is wrongdoing, rather than an assumption that the employee is genuinely injured. Again even in recent weeks there have been a number of postings that commence here. Underlying this is a further level of disregard of fellow human beings, this time for the worker.

Such mistrust of those around us, who all have their own part to play in the workplace and the community, is not conducive to positive or productive relationships, and indeed may contribute to the perception that the OSH profession is populated with self-aggrandising egotists with little to offer.

Back to your hypothetical situation, our first loyalty is to the people around us and if we are in a position to make life better for them, why should we want to take a baseball bat to them?

Philip

Posted By John Murgatroyd
You should have procedures set-up to deal with these hypOthetical situations.

Yes, and I have listened to FAR too many discussions between H&S professionals and their "clients" which began: "yes, you have a problem with dust/fume/tripping-hazards/etc BUT you can mitigate these by doing the dust/fume tests when the workshop is not operating/modifying the H&S policy so that the employees are not allowed any wires etc in their workplace" (ignoring the fact that they cannot do any work then)
The whole H&S industry is riddled with unprofessional and immoral practitioners.

Posted By Philip McAleenan
Jay,

When you open and enter into a debate the correct approach is to respond to debaters in an intelligent and analytical fashion. Puerile rejoinders are inappropriate and fail to do you justice. Indeed many absorbing and healthy debates on this forum have been closed down because some responders have taken this approach. You have opened the debate and you risk jeopardising it by your own actions, I would advise caution.

Now, as to why you have opened the debate; I trust that it is because you are genuinely interested in what other people have to say rather than merely to seek support for the conclusion extant in your last two sentences of the opening thread. And in this regard, by posting your question are you stating that you are willing to be persuaded otherwise? Debate after all is to attempt to persuade or be persuaded by argument.

On the other hand if you are merely seeking support for your views, then maybe this is not the correct forum. Rightly or wrongly I assume people come to these forums with an open mind and a willingness to advance as a result of their participation. Some have a fixed immutable perception of things, and I defend their right to hold their views, but in defending another’s right to hold a particular view does in no way suggests that I too hold that view nor limits me in questioning and/or countering it should I feel so inclined.

As for a charge of soap boxing, if it is aimed at me because I take a position of respecting and defending fellow workers and professionals against unwarranted assaults, then it is a soapbox that I proudly and unashamedly stand on.

In my response I said nothing to suggest that there are no charlatans in the “real world” or professionals that act incompetently. What I did was question why you raised a hypothetical situation with negative assumptions about workers and doctors as opposed to positive ones. Not unreasonable and in the spirit of debate.

Regards Philip

Posted By Tony Brunskill
Pugwash,

Sound advice!

I guess there is a reason the original question was posted as it was but rather than deal with the Hypothetical here is a real world example.

Some years ago while working as a safety manger I turned up at work to be met by the HSE. An accident had apparently occured on the night shift injuring an employee and leaving him unconscious. The employee in question was a Senior Shop Steward.

On initial investigation we were unable to accept his view of what had happened. We dug deeper an identified a maintenance fitter who witnessed a series of events that proved that the account of the IP was seriously flawed.

The IP was interviewed again regarding what had happened and presented with the new evidence. The claim form arrived on my desk before the sick note.

Because of the evidence we suspended the individual on disciplinary grounds. We were then approached by the union and the IP with an offer of "If he came clean would we reinstate him". My position was no but I was overuled.

In his revised statement the "IP" explained that he had, the previous year, suffered an industrial accident. The proceeds of the claim were used to buy a new car. His wife now wanted a caravan. In order to raise the funds he had engineered the "accident". No action was taken against the "IP" as the employer had agreed to conditions prior to all the fact being known. No action was taken by the enforcing authority.
The investigation had called for a consulting engineer and the costs were over £10K, in addition there were the distraction costs of my time and significant others along with loss of production while the plant involved was out of action.

The point of all this is if you suspect a fraud you should investigate it thoroughly. The net benefit of the investigation and subsequent actions was that the number of claims made dropped significantly (Over 50% in number).
While the vast majority of Doctors are thoroughly professional we have to take that against a background of about 7 minutes per patient. With muscular-skeletal injuries the issues often arise some time after the event and the employeee often assocites it in their own mind with work. This they then portray to the GP. They may omit to mention, in complete innocence, the landscaping of the garden, the rugby or other causal/influencing factor. Proactively managing sickness absence is a reasonable and justified business tool. No one is saying this assumes that the average employee is "swinging the lead" but as a good employer it is possible that intervention can speed the recovery of the patient to the benefit of all. If it is work related no employer is going to want to repeat the exercise when the next employee suffers.

Posted By Ian P
I suppose the extent of any investigation will depend on the level of the claim and cost to the company and their insurers. If it is going to cost more to send out investiagators than the claim is going to cost the insurer will accept it unless they have a good idea that they can disprove a claim anyway.

Posted By Tony Brunskill
Ray, I agree but the originator should not be castigated for asking the question.

Posted By John Murgatroyd
And I can state categorically, having recent experience of same, that the insurers take little notice of the managers opinion of the claim. They make their own "investigation" and frequently ignore the management claims !
One fractured wrist + damaged tendon/s + lost time + pain compensation = £41000.00.