Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi Everyone.
A member of staff reported he tripped over a cable and injured himself (ribs). The staff member reported the accident to his H&S guy as required by company rule. The HS guy has investigated and has become aware of a past record of faking injury associated with this particualar guy.
The guy connitued working for 2 days before going sick for 2 days informing his line manager it was due to his injury. He returned to work on the 3rd day.
The HS guy has not yet closed out the investigation and has become aware of further facts.
1. Staff memeber had no reason to be where he claimed the injury took place ( however he had reason to be nearby). It is clear how the trip occured but not how the injury claimed could have occured
2. Information has come to light there is a past record of false claims looking for payout.
The HS guy has contacted me for advice ( i supply support to said company) and the only advice i can give is to ensure all accident reports are correct, medical reports are requested from his doctor if he sought that advice, seek witnesses, enquire for the reasons he was were he should not have been and that it is not reportable under RIDDOR.
I don't believe it is his duty to prove one way or another that it is a false claim. Dispite past records there is no reason to doubt the staff members version of events. Although it's not clear how the injuries could have occured it is not impossible that they did in the way he states
What would your opinions be please? it's a difficult call to ask a H & S guy to act as judge. In my opinion it is his responsibility to supply all the evidence of the case to the MD or HR and from there it lays with them
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Collect any and all evidence of fact - investigation of fraud is not an H&S role
If there is a true history of false claims how has this been determined i.e. would it stand up as gross miss-conduct (falsification of company records) and why are they still employed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Collect any and all evidence of fact - investigation of fraud is not an H&S role
If there is a true history of false claims how has this been determined i.e. would it stand up as gross miss-conduct (falsification of company records) and why are they still employed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: ballyclover  The guy connitued working for 2 days before going sick for 2 days informing his line manager it was due to his injury. He returned to work on the 3rd day.
This is why it is not RIDDOR (not over 7 consecutive days), unless a fracture has been diagnosed by a doctor and what Roundtuit said Edited by user 24 July 2019 10:07:45(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Collect any and all evidence of fact - investigation of fraud is not an H&S role
If there is a true history of false claims how has this been determined i.e. would it stand up as gross miss-conduct (falsification of company records) and why are they still employed?
Thank you for your reply
I cannot answer this as it's not my company so cannot say why he is still employed. I am aware this individual had previous claims which were sucessful but it was felt the claims were exaggerate. In this particular case it is felt the accident again is either exaggerated in the hopes of yet another payout or completely made up.
As we both agree it is not for the H&S guy to play judge and jury here, his role is purley to make the investigation and report his findings
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
You are correct, it is not for health and safety people to be judge and jury. However, if there is any doubt regarding the legitimacy of his accident, taking into account he has allegedly had some previous, then it is down to his line manager to have a little chat with him and find out why this worker appears to be 'accident prone'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: ballyclover Originally Posted by: Roundtuit I am aware this individual had previous claims which were sucessful but it was felt the claims were exaggerate. In this particular case it is felt the accident again is either exaggerated in the hopes of yet another payout or completely made up.
Hmmm, thats a rather different statement from the original one. "2. Information has come to light there is a past record of false claims looking for payout." Its not clear to me if the fellow has actually attempted to make a claim for this incident? Either way I would have thought fully recording anything and even RIDDOR reporting (although seemingly not necessary in this example) wouldn't preclude defending any claim if there was also evidence it was faked?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hello, Is there CCTV available to view?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.