I wonder if you could help my understanding. I'm trying to appreciate what regulation 2(2)(c) of RIDDOR means to professionals in the field. In general terms under RIDDOR there is a duty for the responsible person to report to HSE accidents resulting in injury which are either Schedule 1 (major injuries) or accidents resulting in the either the person being absent from work or unable to undertake their normal duties for over 3 days as a result of their injuries. The main requirement to report is driven by the phrase ‘Arising out of or in connection with work’. The guidance itself recognises that arising out of or in connection with work has a very wide meaning and regulation 2(2)(c) does not give a complete definition. There is some additional guidance given but it still seems a bit woolly. Therefore, could I give a couple of examples and ask for your thoughts. Case 1: An employee is involved in a minor accident at work, their injuries are minimal and no first aid is given. They continue at work but complain of feeling unwell later in the day and go home. The following day a medical certificate is received which indicates that the individual is absent from work as a result of a known pre-existing medical condition (high blood pressure). There is no causal link between the minor injury sustained (bruise) and the reason for the absence. Question: would you report under RIDDOR? Case 2: An employee telephones to report that he will not be into work because they claim to have suffered a musculoskeletal injury on their last shift which was four days earlier. There is a requirement for all employees to report all adverse events immediately. There are also no witnesses. A medical certificate is received the following day stating that the person will be absent from work for three weeks. Question: would you report under RIDDOR? Incidentally, all accidents are thoroughly investigated and measures put in place to prevent a recurrence. I suppose what I am concerned about is that there are potentially hundreds of incidents reported to the ICC for individuals whose absences are not out of or in connection with work. Your views would be appreciated.

Agree with case1 : no case 2: yes, as well as previous post, would also consider taking action against employee for not following accident reporting procedures (if trained in this)

NO YES Job done.... I have also had an incident where an employee collapsed due to medical condition and injured themself in the fall. not reported as the injury was not as a result of the work.... It all gets a bit vague but if in doubt I always call the report line and check, I also report whenever unsure, you can always retract it later and can always add a note as to why you have reported.

No Yes and I would speak to the individual and their line manager to find out why it wasn't reported immediately. I had a similar situation recently and I rang the RIDDOR hotline (0844 371 9173) and they immediately advised what steps I needed to take. It put my mind at rest and also saved me time wondering "do I need to?" "Do I not need to?". The helpline don't ask for any of your personal details (i.e company name, address etc). It is 100% confidential.

Thank you to all of you who have replied but if I could ask your tolerance for a moment. Both cases are hypothetical although developed from past experience. I agree with all of your verdicts relating to case 1. However, I have a problem with your verdict with case 2 inasmuch as I don’t believe the injured parties story. I think they are swinging the lead. Their description of the circumstances leading up to the event is plausible. However, a causal link has been broken because of the time delay between sustaining the injury and reporting the accident. The other point I think which is important to make is that whilst I am not concerned about litigation I am concerned that this RIDDOR report will damage the relationship with a client and could have serious contractual consequences including loss of business. Would you still report it? Incidentally I didn’t report a similar event in much the same circumstances.

Steve I agree with your view. Furthermore, I believe the RIDDOR statistics are inflated as a result of a high proportion of accidents being reported unnecessarily. I’m not sure why this is and perhaps it could be put down to the lack of clarity within the Regulations. I am not too worried by the litigious side of things as in theory at least loss adjuster/insurers can dispute the validity of a claim. However, I do know that the claimants position is strengthened if the employer admits that the absence from work was sustained “arising out of or in connection with work ’. However, I suppose my concern is the affect dubious RIDDOR reports have upon businesses ability to secure and maintain work in what are very challenging economic times. Again thanks to all who have helped clarify my thoughts, if there are any further thoughts, views or opinions then please contribute to the debate.

With case 2 in mind - we just need to ensure (as we do) that employees are instructed to report accidents and incidents in a timely manner - where required consider necessary action with regards to Section 7(b) because in some cases if employees do not cooperate then how can the employer fulfill their obligation under RIDDOR.