Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Lynne  
#1 Posted : 16 October 2023 07:29:34(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Lynne

Hi all

An employee alleged that they injured their back on a Thursday when moving boxes, they have said they weren't following correct manual handling techniques. Worker did not report the incident and carried on working that day and the Friday.

On Monday they arrived at work, was getting changed into their work clothes when they felt immense pain in their back and had to be taken by ambulance to hospital. After being given strong pain killers they went home but have been off work for the whole of that week.

Is this RIDDOR reportable, I am inclined to say no as the original alleged incident did not lead to the absence.

Thanks in advance for any replies

peter gotch  
#2 Posted : 16 October 2023 10:23:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Morning Lynn

These Forums have been full of RIDDOR questions since originally set up.

Yours is yet another question where the case could be made for saying "Yes" or "No".

So, then it is necessary to ask why you are particurly bothered. 

Does is make any big difference if you add one on to the top of the "over 7 day" injuries to be REPORTED and rccorded or the "Over 3 day" injuries [in each case OTHER than the day of the accident] to be RECORDED?

As has been said many times, RIDDOR is nothing to do with liability but is rather an administrative mechanism to provide some intelligence to HSE as to how many accidents of designated severities and types of immediate causation happen in GB in a typical year. HSE recognise that the numbers reported (or since 2013 recorded only) are significantly UNDERreported/recorded.

The person responsible for making submissions of reportable RIDDOR events (typically the employer) can be prosecuted for failing to do so.

In contrast they can't be prosecuted for reporting something that is proved NOT to have been reportable.

So, you take your choice.

However, to convince yourself that this particular accident was NOT reportable, you should be confident that:

(a) an accident at work did NOT happen as asserted and/or

(b) the resultant injury which has apparently resulted in more than 3 days' incapacity from the victim's normal work was not caused by the initial event - not uncommon for conditions to deteriorate after time, sometimes with an intervening event exacerbating what had already occurred

Now if you choose to decide this is not reportable or recordable, what message do you send the workforce about how much you trust and value them?

As to the difference between being recordable and reportable, you would need to start by considering at what point this employee was no longer capable of doing their normal work and it sounds as if that would have been on the Monday after the accident - may be a triggering event which exacerbated the initial injury. 

So, you could choose that day to count as the day of the accident or the earlier event, but that only changes things in terms of the first day to count. So, your clock starts either on the day after the asserted accident or the Tuesday. Either way if the employee was not capable of doing their normal work for the rest of the week you reach the "over 3 days" but "over 7 days" would be reached a few days later.

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
M.cooper.99 on 16/10/2023(UTC)
Davidfilce  
#3 Posted : 18 October 2023 13:40:08(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Davidfilce

Agree with what Peter said.

I had a similar incident. The person had underlying conditions but had an accident which could have caused the absence (the person worked for several days after).

You have to be pretty sure that there was a causal link between the injury and the accident.

I stated this on the RIDDOR and submitted erring on the side of caution.

Its worth considering that if the injured person makes a claim on that injury, their legal team, I would expect, would ask to see things like the RIDDOR report. It will make things tricky if its not there

O'Donnell54548  
#4 Posted : 19 October 2023 19:35:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
O'Donnell54548

Originally Posted by: Davidfilce Go to Quoted Post

Agree with what Peter said.

I had a similar incident. The person had underlying conditions but had an accident which could have caused the absence (the person worked for several days after).

You have to be pretty sure that there was a causal link between the injury and the accident.

I stated this on the RIDDOR and submitted erring on the side of caution.

Its worth considering that if the injured person makes a claim on that injury, their legal team, I would expect, would ask to see things like the RIDDOR report. It will make things tricky if its not there

Not sure about the reference to an injury claim, as most cases are settled out of court with no say so from the employer. 

  

AlexanderC76  
#5 Posted : 26 October 2023 13:16:38(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
AlexanderC76

I am in a similar predicament. A person slipped on something first thing Monday morning  reporting the incident later that day to a first aider claiming to have "spilt their coffee and jarred their back". The individual continued to work for the rest of the week, taking the weekend off and working till calling in sick the following Thursday and getting signed off a week later by the doctor for 2 weeks off with a back pain. 

In my opinion this is not a RIDDOR due to the fact the employee worked a week and a half. Then only contested it as a workplace injury as they are at benchmark for Sickness. 

Kate  
#6 Posted : 26 October 2023 13:37:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

Well there you go, this is just one of many reasons why automatically disciplining employees for sickness absence is counter-productive.

Highpants  
#7 Posted : 31 October 2023 10:22:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Highpants

Agree with both Peter & O'Donnell54548, the RIDDOR subject is by far the most common area for arguement/disagreement that Ive encountered at work, the main reason certain Employers will do almost anything to avoid recording a Riddor is not a potential claim but merely for their H&S statistics as the amount of Riddors often affects a Company's KPI performance etc, it also often forms part of Invitation to Tender(ITT) which in my opinion is wrong and should be stopped as it without doubt leads to Safety Advisors being pressured NOT to record an accident as a RIDDOR, come accross this often and wish the HSE would make the criteria in simple black and white so there is never any doubt what is and what isnt Riddor reportable.

thanks 1 user thanked Highpants for this useful post.
Kate on 31/10/2023(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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.