How long a period can the words 'work-related' be attached to stress for a time off work? While accepting there may be additional issues due to the stress which can be longer-term, any views on how an individual can be off work for two years with still classed 'work-related stress' which is surely not possible if the individual has not been at work? I have a view, but interested in hearing others experiences and opinions.

Kevin, you're all heart - NOT! If work or some work-related event was the cause of stress, and if the symptoms persist, then that is STILL work-related stress, just as much as a work-related broken leg following an industrial accident is still a work-related broken leg long after the individual stopped work and settles into a long recuperative period at home. I deal with several individuals who have suffered occupational sharps injury. Though no infection has resulted, in 2 individuals post-traumatic anxiety - of what might have happened, exacerbated by the need for post-exposure prophylaxis and a difficult 6-month follow-up period - resulted in debilitating psychological symptoms that rendered them unfit for work. In each case, this affected the entire family group, necessitating several years of professional support for the individuals and their wives. If you ever have the misfortune to be affected by severe stress you might just begin to understand.

Also thanks Martin for the attachment, appreciate it.

Two years does seem an exceptionally long period to be off work with stress but without knowing the full facts it is difficult comment. In my experience most employers do not handle such cases very well and the 'work-related stress' my actually be a euphemism for some other work-related problem ie bullying, disciplinary, sexual, racial etc.

Kevin You appear to be confounding a good question, 'any views on how an individual can be off work for two years with still classed 'work-related stress', with an opinion that begs the question. Unless you get at least one assessment from a chartered psychologist or a pscyhiatrist competent to assess 'work-related' injuires (and relatively few psychiatrists specialise in occupationlal injuries), there's little basis for making a judgment about the work-related safety/health boundaries 'in so far as reasonably practicable' for a particular individual. As Ian Blenkhorn indicates, the tendency of 'helping' professionials is to incline towards support and leniency for an afflicted employee (or customer); paradoxically, should they not support the individual, their INDEPENDEND opinion can be all the more significant. Technically, the longer the lapse of time between the source of personal injury and any assessment, the more difficult it becomes to gather reliable, valid data unless they have been documented or filmed at or near the time of an incident.

I think the physical injury analogies aren't representative. Try this; if you are scared of spiders now you will still be scared of them in two years time - even if you don't see one. Something needs to be changed or treated. Simplistic maybe but works for me. See Daws vs Intel, Walker v. Northumberland County Council and Sutherland v. Hatton.

I assume that the individual's absence is confirmed by a series of sick notes signed by a suitably qualified medical practitioner. You are free to challenge that diagnosis, and that professional judgement regarding the need for formal absence from work. However, your own skills are totally inappropriate to do that, and even if you seek support from the relevant practitioners you face a massive uphill struggle and costly court case that will end mired in questions of professional competence, diagnostics, prognosis etc. Don't go there. You are not free to challenge the individual, except in the most formal and carefully managed terms, since that can come dangerously close to bullying, constructive dismissal etc You might take the employment view that you can no longer keep the individual on the books. That is a different matter, largely founded in how much you are going to pay to get rid! You may take a rather negative view on stress-related illness. The cost may be considerable, but to persist in that negative view on stress-related illness is likely to increase quite dramatically the costs that you will face. Tread carefully, and remember that someone is ill. Don't make it worse