Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By GWP
Comments please.
An employee comes to work and explains to his supervisor that he has come out in a rash and has to go home. He thinks it may be a reaction to an insect bite or exposure to horse hair insulation on pipes that he was exposed to on the previous day. The rash is not visible as it is not on his hands or face but allegedly on his body. He is off work for 6 days. Should this be reported under RIDDOR.
Gerry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ali
You would need to establish first if this rash was work related. If it wasn't, then it's not reportable in any case.If you are satisfied that it is work related (through the GP or Occ Health), then it may be Reportable as an over 3d injury or Reportable disease (if listed).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmezy
Gerry,
yes, you should report because the absence is over 3 days, caused "allegedly" by a reaction to a substance at work.
However, it does sound a little suspicous having six days off with a "rash" that no one can see. Is there a doctors note, was it reported in the accident book, did the rash cause so much discomfort that the empoloyee couldnt work at all?
I might sound sceptical but had a similar situation recently where an employee had cut his thumb, went to hospital for 2 stiches, returned to work, having been declared fit, then decided to have 3 days of with his poorly thumb. I reported this because we had him doing "other duties" and he was off for 3 days. On investigation, there was no doctors note or report from the hospital advising him to rest his thumb etc. When he came back, I explained to him that we had to report it, what the potential total cost to both the company and nation etc was, that we might get a visit from the HSE, is he ok to resume normal duties, can we do anything to help him, all the caring sharing stuff etc etc, etc.
The truth began to come out. It turned out he was house hunting and had thought that he deserved a little paid time off!!
Ask enough questions and you shall eventually get to the truth.
Good luck.
I'm not always this cynical,,,,
Holmezy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
As I see it, this is a skin rash. It could have many different causes. If it is on the body and not on the hands or face I would be highly sceptical about it being occupational in the first place.
The only way you will determine whether it is an allergic reaction is by referral to a dermatologist for patch or prick testing. It might be an irritant reaction, but in that case I would have expected to see a response on the sensitive skin of the face as well as on the body.
GP are generally not equipped to diagnose occupational skin problems. Occupational physicians can do a better job, but even they may need to refer to a dermatologist.
As far as RIDDOR is concerned, until it is diagnosed as an occupational skin problem it need not be reported. For occupational skin problems it is not necessary for there to have been time off. Diagnosis of an occupational contact dermatitis by a registered medical practitioner is sufficient to require reporting. (For more on this see guidance note MS24)
So my position would be:
1. Was it really occupational. A proper investigation would reveal whether there was an exposure likely to cause the problem. If so, then an appropriate test would reveal if this was the cause.
2. Until that stage no report. Remember the 8:24 rule, i.e. 8 hours at work, 24 away from work. It's the same skin and there are many substances outside the workplace that can cause a skin reaction.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.