IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
RIDDOR - Injuries not immediately preventing person from work
Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Darren J Male
One of my client's employees received a minor chemical burn injury, attended hospital, returned to work afterwards and for the two days. The burn may of turned septic and his manager has told him to stay at home to avoid infection (this is what his Doctor is likely to of done anyway).
I have previously been told by a FIOSH that injuries that do not immediately prevent the IP from returning to work are not reportable under RIDDOR. Do you concur?
Septasemia is not a RIDDOR defined disease.
Darren
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
I do not concur if the injury means loss of more than three days (not including day of injury) - or reduced duties within the same time period.
The short delay is not material.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
Should have added that it is the burn, not the septicemia that is the injury.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Halesowen Baggie
Agree with Tabs.
Just because sombody has letters after their name doesnt make them the wizard of Oz.....or does it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Futcher
In my recent experience we had a woman who scratched her foot against a machine as she stepped off her stool there was a small amount of blood, but she didn't report it despite our clear injury reporting requirements (Healthcare business - any blood: report it). No treatment was given. She had the next day off (booked holiday), and the two next days off with a bad back (unrelated; long term problem). Then it was the weekend.
Monday she attempted to come to work, but when she arrived she could not put any weight on the foot (swollen, great pain). She was sent to a GP who diagnosed Cellulitis (inflammation of soft tissue), and signed her off for two weeks, antibiotics and rest.
6 days between incident and "result". I notified under RIDDOR, despite it being a ridiculously small original incident, and even though I was considering "novus actus interveniens". We did an investigation and recorded the findings, and made an official note on her record for not following reporting procedures (as it was not the first time she had behaved this way).
The person was of the type that makes injury claims, so I was not going to add to the list of documents that might not exist, by not reporting it under RIDDOR. There already wasn't going to be a risk assessment for getting off a chair!
I notice that, in a lot of threads, there really is a reluctance to report. I can't understand it. If someone makes a claim, a RIDDOR report is going to be one of the documents requested by the solicitors. Report it; if it's not what HSE want to hear, they will discard it. At least you have done all you can to ensure everything is in place for when the claim form arrives.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Jerman
We must remember that CFIOSH is not a qualification - it is professional status. I would hope that qualification and status would go hand in hand to some degree at least. In this case, as an 'F' myself, I would have to disagree with my 'colleague'. This is reportable under RIDDOR, if not in fact then in spirit. We must remember what RIDDOR is for. When an event occurs and it is not immediately obvious whether the HSE should be notified or not, I don't simply report anyway 'to be sure' I have a discussion over whether I feel that the HSE would want to know and benefit from knowing about this. We had a circumstance where an employee suffered an injury, had a day off, then another, then two, then one more - over a period of several months but never exceeded three days in one episode. By the time they had taken 10 days off - I retrospectively reported the event - in the spirit not the letter of RIDDOR.
Ian, I understand what you are saying about reluctance, but I think that many of the issues raised are more in line with being a 'technical' query - 'I'm sure that this a RIDDOR - but why?' Rather than 'How can I get out of reporting this?'
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Melanie Fellows
Can I just ask, going by how many queries on here regarding whether to report or not, if you were in doubt and did report it, is it reviewed and rejected if not relevant/ required by the HSE, or would it bump the stats figures up?
I know when I've rung to enquire, I'm just told it's best to report (the people I've spoken to on the phone didn't know either way).
Mel
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi
There can be and indeed are instances when the effects of a workplace injury in context of "over 3 day" away from work will apply and yor description for this one appears to be that it is an over 3 day injury.
The RIDDOR guidance in L 73 recognises this i.e.:-
There will be cases when the reportable injury or condition resulting from the accident will either be:
-unrecognisable without a medical examination which is conducted only after some delay; or
-delayed for some time after the accident
In such cases the notification (and report) required should be made as soon as the injury or condition has been confirmed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By A Campbell
There appears to be a lot of stigma attached to debates of whether to report a RIDDOR or not.
Could it be that the spirit of reporting is more favourable in the SME areas and the larger establishments have a more vigorous ‘vetting’ approach?
In construction related area’s there is the pressure of reporting to the PC.. who may or may not be happy with un unhealthy statistical graph to present to their board members.
In the offshore industry again pressure has been felt in the past on what was reportable or not, I know from experience indirect pressure of loss of safety related bonus was a factor, in addition to the fact of statistical information having to be passed to higher authorities/management in the corporation.
The board outside/inside the gates informs people as to when the last reportable incident took place (or how long ago) Is this a motivator?
I doubt there is an easy answer to be open about reporting so long as there are underlying pressures that sometimes appear not to prevent them… but not to report them (especially if in a grey area)!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
Thanks for the quote, Jay.
Can I just repeat (as it is said so often) that reluctance can be a corporate reporting issue. I have just spent two hours filling out my quarterly reporting metric, in which my company reviews my account's performance against other accounts. Having a RIDDOR would skew my result badly, so I for one will follow the law - not a blanket approach.
If the HSE wanted a blanket approach, why would the law writers go to the trouble of defining what they want? (albeit poorly, eh?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Melanie Fellows
Whilst I'm sure some people are under pressure not to report, I believe there is a genuine concern for people who don't want to over report, just to be covered, just in case.
I'm very lucky that my boss is in total agreement with me that every reportable case is reported, whatever the outcome. But I still don't want to report unless I'm certain.
Mel
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi In my workplace, our "corporate reporting" is on the basis of the OSHA Recording Rules which encompass a greater range of "accidents and illnesses" that have to be "reported". However, the advantage (or indeed disadvantage!) is that the OSHA rules are "prescriptive", therefore there is less possibility of speculation. However, there will always be borderline judgements. As safety professionals, we should be able to justify our judgements by suitable documentation and investigation reports. It is a pity that the HSE or perhaps IOSH in partnershipo with HSE (and other safety organisations?) has not compiled an FAQ on this ! The OSHA "Rules" are explained in Question/Answer format making it simpler to comprehend! refer to:- For OSHA questions/Answers on "work-relatedness" http://www.osha.gov/pls/...able=STANDARDS&p_id=9636For all recording rules http://www.osha.gov/pls/...vel=1&p_part_number=1904Yes, despite all the above guidance, judgements have to be made, but it romoves a lot of grey areas!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Halesowen Baggie
I used to work for one of the largest companies in the world and because of H&S stats they would try everything to not have a RIDDOR. Managers would go and pick people up from home to get them into work, it was a joke.
After a RIDDOR a whole bunch of people from a central team would come and investigate the incident. It was a circus, you'd have about 20 blokes on the scene for a twisted ankle but nobody would be bothered about a near miss report of a fully laden pallet collapsing and falling from high level racking.
It was all politics, every day, and all I got from my site manager (who was very good and had my viewpoint) was this is a corporate world and thats the way it works!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Richards
"the person was of the type that makes injury claims, so I was not going to add to the list of documents that might not exist, by not reporting it under RIDDOR. There already wasn't going to be a risk assessment for getting off a chair"
Which type would that be ?
Female ?
Male ?
Female [stupid] ?
Female [intelligent]
Male [stupid]
Male [intelligent]
Or maybe we should go into other stereotypes now ?
The vast majority of claims made are VALID claims for REAL injury, pain and disability.
And don't forget, the amount of claims made every year are much smaller than other countries.
Given the amount of time spent, on this site, on discussions on what to not, whether to or whether not to, report under the RIDDOR scheme you could imagine that a report would unleash the hounds of hell upon an unfortunate reportee. As if. Even a serious injury is unlikely to lead to a visit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Halesowen Baggie
John
Good point about a serious injury not leading to a visit (which may be another reason why people dont report).
The couple I have reported have been for quite serious injuries including a dangerous occurrence of a fork lift overturning(another should I report/not report load bearing or not)and we have not heard a dickie bird!
There is a section on the RIDDOR report form to say what you are going to do as a result of the incident anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Futcher
Let me be a little clearer about the "type of person".
It is the type of person who is sadly not paid as well as I am and who is clever enough to look at the advertisments on the television about "Had an accident at work that wasn't your fault?", and can see the potential pound signs.
It is the type of person who we are all trying to protect, but sadly only look out for thier own financial ends, and don't consider the effect of increased claims on the insurance premiuims paid by their employer, make the company less profitable , and end up closing the site... just as is happening here in December this year.
Nothing about gender, or "thick".
Hope that clears it up.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Darren J Male
Thanks for the discussion - in this case we have undertaken a full investigation and have implemented corrective actions, but, as some of you have indicated, as a construction related company their performance is based upon RIDDOR Reporting and we do not want to over report. If we submit and the HSE then dismiss the claim we still have no proof that it was dismissed.
In regards Insurance companies often roll over straight away anyway in favour of the employee so the influence of the RIDDOR Report is slightly reduced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Richards
Insurance companies settle the claim largely because they know they are highly likely to lose anyway.
Most companies have a large incentive to close operations here. It's called cheaper labour abroad and large subsidy to go elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Halesowen Baggie
Most insurance companies settle because it will cost them to fight the claim.
Insurance company thinking;
Shall we fight this=cost £8000
Shall we settle out of court=cost £1500
Can we get that £1500 back by increasing liability insurance premiums next time = oh yes
If you have the documentation to fight a claim MAKE your insurers fight it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete Longworth
Why should an employee consider the effect of a claim on insurance premia? They often have enough to consider how they will make it through the day in one piece.
Insurance claims aren't the reason for high premia, it's poor health and safety performance that does that. If you want to reduce claims then do something to reduce accidents. In my experience it's not employees that close companies down, it's poor managers/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch
Beat me to it Peter have a good weekend.
Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
RIDDOR - Injuries not immediately preventing person from work
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.