Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Mac Watson
Person crosses a conveyor bridge and stumbles on the bottom step. Conveyor bridge is inspected and found to be clean and with no defects. Injured person states that his ankle "just gave way" causing him to stumble.
Injury was not therefore the result of "physically carrying out a work related task" neither was it the result of a "physical condition of the workplace" (can't think where I originally saw these two descriptors - if any one can help on this aswell).
Would appreciate peoples views on whether they think it is reportable
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Hossam
what about the step height or may be the shoes itself..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dav
Mac
How much time did he have off?
What was he doing crossing the bridge - presumably he was doing something work orientated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By joolz040770
There are too many factors to take into account - is he/she tired/stressed, was he/she wearing correct shoes, is eyesight ok, was he/she carrying something, is lighting poor - personally I would report the incident and investigate internally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Homer
If it happened at his work and during the course of his normal working day and it's 3 days or more or a significant break to limb (if applicable) it's reportable without a doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alex.wilkes
Agree with Homer with this one. If it is reportable in relation to days off or injury sustained it is reportable due it happening in the workplace. Its in the workplace so defined as work related.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Rose
Mac
Do you mean 'reportable' (as in RIDDOR) or recordable? If they have had an accident at work then I personally would get it recorded in the accident book and complete the narrative with the facts as you see them
Phil .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Altoft
if in connection with work which appears to be reason he was there then reportable.
All in the Regs
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Altoft
sorry previous posting incomplete - assuming we are talking about reporting under RIDDOR then other criteria such as injury or time off being over 3 days also applied. In terms of what caused the accident RIDDOR only requires it to be arising out of or in connection with work for it to be reportable for a person at work. Persons not at work similar.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Barr
I'd agree with joolz040770 as to wether it's reportable or not - it may be or, it may not be depending on all the factors.
The 1st criteria to assess is whether it "arose out of, or in connection with the work activity" - RIDDDOR Reg 2(2)(c) and guidance at para's 30 - 39 in the RIDDOR guide L73.
If it doesn't meet this then it's not reportable irrespective of how many days off or broken bones there may be.
If it passes this test then that's when the over-3 day / major injury criteria kick in.
(IMHO)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mac Watson
Step height was the normal 6 to 8inches high. Not carrying anything with lighting etc okay. He was just moving from point A to point B.
What I am trying to get across is that his ankle just gave way, nothing we could have done to prevent this happening either pre or post accident.
Its the sort of thing that has happened to me in the past and no doubt many of you when for an unknown reason your walking along and your ankle gives way or as we say in this part of the world "coggles over".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Juan Carlos Arias
"not work related task"???? where is this conveyor bridge located? somewhere outside the employer's premises? I suppose not
why was the person moving from A to B as you said? was it during working hours?
If the person has been away off sick due to this incident for more than 3 days, regardless of who is at fault, then it becomes RIDDOR reportable. It will also depend in the nature of the injury, which you don't say what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Altoft
RIDDOR is not about blame, nor in fact should any investigation. RIDDOR requirements arise from injury and arising from or connection with work.
In some circumstances violence and suicide become reportable and that is even less predictable and controllable by employers.
Report against requirements not any sense of being to blame or not
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Rose
I am slightly losing the plot on this one! If we are talking 'reportable' as in RIDDOR, then surely we need to know if this person has been off more that 3 days or suffered a major injury (or God forbid died), before we can decide if reportable or not - don't we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.