Rank: New forum user 
|
Hi All
Hoping to get a bit of an insight into the below scenario. There's been an injury on-site due to lifting a tray of items, these weren't particularly heavy.
- Tray weighed 4kg
- Lifting from approximately chest weight
- Being placed onto a trolley just above the waist
- Area is accessible with no limitations on safe handling
From the accident report and witness statements, the injured party followed manual handling procedures.
However when the injured party lifted a tray, they felt 'something pop' in their back, the incident wasn't reported for several hours potentially further aggravating the injury.
The injured party was sent home and advised to seek further medical advice since they seemed to be in moderate pain and sweating.
The injured party is signed off work for 2 weeks, due to the injury sustained at work.
There seems to be some confusion about how to report this since some think this is an accident due to the job being carried out and others think it's an injury due to the process not being correct and not an LTA. From my perspective, this is an LTA, an injury occurred while carrying out work. Since this is also over 7 days, its RIDDOR reportable.
I'm keen to get feedback from others in H&S on how you'd categorize this incident.
Other forums have mentioned LTI rather than LTA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Manual Handling injuries like these are always difficult ones to categorise. If its an accident, what went wrong to cause it? did the person have underlying back issues we or they didn't know about, was it some that was done outside of work at just agrivated the issue.
Even the HSE state "Injuries themselves, eg 'feeling a sharp twinge', are not accidents. There must be an identifiable external event that causes the injury, eg a falling object striking someone. Cumulative exposures to hazards, which eventually cause injury (eg repetitive lifting), are not classed as 'accidents' under RIDDOR" I tend to record these as medical incidents. Up to you if you want to report it as a 7 Day.
|
 1 user thanked MrBrightside for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
@MrBrightSide Thanks for the response, it's much appreciated.
There are no underlying health issues from our records, and nothing has been reported to HR, I couldn't confidentially say if this was a contributing factor.
It's been difficult to categorize since it was mentioned they followed MH procedures, the only plausible explanation is, they didn't follow MH and bent/twisted incorrectly or picked up more than they could carry, I have no proof of this. The injured party and witness both stated MH was followed and nothing was out of the ordinary.
From further discussions internally, I'll log this as a Lost Time Injury (unless others think otherwise) rather than LTA I'd still report this as lost time just because of this from the RIDDOR legislation, it was in connection with the work: "Where any person at work is incapacitated for routine work for more than seven consecutive days (excluding the day of the accident) because of an injury resulting from an accident arising out of or in connection with that work, the responsible person must send a report to the relevant enforcing authority in an approved manner as soon as practicable and in any event within 15 days of the accident."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I would agree with MrBrightSide.
According to your version of events, it appears there was no accident that caused the injury so your highlight in red regarding RIDDOR is not applicable, regardless of seven days incapacitation. It might be time to review manual handling procedures if as you say, everything was followed and the immediate work environment did not give rise to increasing the risk of an accident / incident. This is my take.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Dafyn Unless you have a culture in which you don't trust your staff, I would default to assuming that the injured party has told the truth and report under RIDDOR. A report is NOT an admission of liability but rather a mechanism to help the regulator get some sort of idea of the reasons for accidents. However, whilst you don't seem to have evidence that this injury WAS work-related, equally you don't seem to have any evidence to say that it WASN'T. What sort of message to do you want to convey to the workforce? But.....you might be working for an organisation obsessed with trying to make the Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate graph look to be on a nice downward trend so there might be pressure to categorise this as NOT work-related - in which case the message you convey to the workforce may not be high on the agenda!
Edited by user 11 July 2023 13:26:26(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
2 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Agree with Peter 100%, I would not hesitate to report this as a Riddor, far too many cases and people using the HSE definition of a Riddor reportable incident to thier own interpretation, in my experience with a view to making sure the 'Stats' show a low or in some cases zero Riddor reportable incidents, its becoming far too frequent for my liking and is the cause of many disagreements, I wish the HSE would simplify thier definition so there is absolutley no doubt, as it is it is wide open to others interpretation to suit a given criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Hi All
Thanks for the all feedback, the workforce is very proactive with safety and I have no legitimate reasons to not trust them, I'm trying to look at it from all angles and possibilities. From the investigation, there are no limiting factors to hinder the MH process, and there's been no deviation from the Risk Assessment for the area. I'd prefer to err on the side of caution and report it.
The LTA and LTI are discussions I can have internally with all Senior Management in how we want to report it. Thanks again for all the feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I never trust anyone's version of events unless it has been investigated. Call me cynical, but I have seen enough instances of people trying it on for various reasons (espcially in the good old claims hayday). CCTV can be very enlightening if you have that luxery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: DafynLee 
However when the injured party lifted a tray, they felt 'something pop' in their back,
The injured party is signed off work for 2 weeks, due to the injury sustained at work.
So there is a definate action i.e. lifting the tray - this was a work activity as far as i can see and hes been unable to do work acrtivity for more that 7 days - why is there any question as to this being RIDDOR? one of the clearest examples i have ever seen, unless im missing something. As Peter says, RIDDOR is not about admitting fault, and there may be nothing that could have been done to prevent this injury, but thats irrelevant
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I don't understand the distinction that is being made between LTI and LTA.
Why would you use both terms within the same recording system? To me, they both mean that time has been lost due to an injury caused by an accident at work, and they are just different terms for the same thing.
|
1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard As Peter says, RIDDOR is not about admitting fault, and there may be nothing that could have been done to prevent this injury, but thats irrelevant
Brian, you and Peter are quite right; RIDDOR is not about admitting fault. However many organisations wrangle with the semantics of RIDDOR as in the majority of supply chain processes and insurer interactions RIDDOR is absolutely seen as an indicator of fault. Hence the push to 'manipulate' the stats in some cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.