Rank: New forum user
|
Employee has had over 7 days off as he said he injured his back at work. No evidence of injury (no CCTV) was absent right through Easter bank holiday period and has not attended hospital or visited a GP. So he has just self diagnosed his injury and had a total 12 days off
Should I have to log as a RIDDOR?? Edited by user 15 April 2024 15:30:07(UTC)
| Reason: spelling
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If it fits the reporting criteria then you should report it - it is no admission of anything.
Hopefully HR will be docking pay given the extended period under self-certification beyond the period.
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If it fits the reporting criteria then you should report it - it is no admission of anything.
Hopefully HR will be docking pay given the extended period under self-certification beyond the period.
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Im with Round on this - Have you investigated the claim yet or is that difficult with them being off work? You could include your suspicions about the incident on the report. Used to see that as an inspector, depending on the history of the company it would influence my response.
|
1 user thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Hi, I have a similar query regarding RIDDOR. An employee stood up awkwardly on a long haul flight and suffered a slipped disk. He was flying in connection with work so he was at work at the time the injury occurred. The slipped disk is not a reportble/notifiable incident but he WAS incapacitated and off work for more than 7 days - is this reportable under RIDDOR?
|
1 user thanked Masson16478 for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Masson - I would not report yours
1. not a work related injury 2. No benefit to HSE to have this on their books
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Masson 1. Whether it is a work-related injury is difficult to tell without more detail. 2. Whether HSE actually want to know about such scenarios should not be a consideration. You should consider what RIDDOR actually says not what HSE would like RIDDOR to say. 3. Don't ask me to quote why be RIDDOR wouldn't apply to in flight accidents. There are separate Regulations covering civil aviation but I haven't a clue what they say. However, RIDDOR is drafted to exclude almost all work-related transportation accidents.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
According to INDG453 (a (very!) brief guide to RIDDOR) accidents are 'a separate, identifiable..incident that caused physical injury'. So having a 'bad back' is not a RIDDOR unless there is a specific, identifiable, incident that caused this.
(Not that the HSE website RIDDOR guidance now refers you to INDG453. You have to somehow know this already exisits and search for it to see if it's still valid/published)
|
1 user thanked Palmer20061 for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Palmer20061 According to INDG453 (a (very!) brief guide to RIDDOR) accidents are 'a separate, identifiable..incident that caused physical injury'. So having a 'bad back' is not a RIDDOR unless there is a specific, identifiable, incident that caused this.
(Not that the HSE website RIDDOR guidance now refers you to INDG453. You have to somehow know this already exisits and search for it to see if it's still valid/published)
Thanks Palmer, would you not report it then, even though the 'back injury' resulted in over 7 day absence?
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Thanks everyone for all your comments. The incident and injury occurred on a flight to/from the employees office so I've interpreted that to be at work. The injury is not notifiable but it did result in the employee off work for more than 7 days. It was a slipped disk back injury that occurred after sitting in a cramped position then getting up to open an overhead locker.
Am I right in saying that a RIDDOR reportable incident has to be a notifiable injury AND result in the injured person off work for more than 7 days or can it be ANY work related injury that results in the IP off work for more than 7 days? Thanks all
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hello Mason, No in answer to your question - it doesn't need to also be a specified injury for it to be reportable if the IP is off for more than 7 consecutive days. The over 7 day incapacitation can be for any workplace accident.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: hemsy Originally Posted by: Palmer20061 According to INDG453 (a (very!) brief guide to RIDDOR) accidents are 'a separate, identifiable..incident that caused physical injury'. So having a 'bad back' is not a RIDDOR unless there is a specific, identifiable, incident that caused this.
(Not that the HSE website RIDDOR guidance now refers you to INDG453. You have to somehow know this already exisits and search for it to see if it's still valid/published)
Thanks Palmer, would you not report it then, even though the 'back injury' resulted in over 7 day absence?
If no specific injury incident was reported at the time, or shortly afterwards, then no, I wouldn't. I would, however, keep an internal record in case of a future insurance claim.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Masson16478 Thanks everyone for all your comments. The incident and injury occurred on a flight to/from the employees office so I've interpreted that to be at work. The injury is not notifiable but it did result in the employee off work for more than 7 days. It was a slipped disk back injury that occurred after sitting in a cramped position then getting up to open an overhead locker.
Am I right in saying that a RIDDOR reportable incident has to be a notifiable injury AND result in the injured person off work for more than 7 days or can it be ANY work related injury that results in the IP off work for more than 7 days? Thanks all
You'll probably find he'll ask for Business Class travel next time........ Some company's I've worked with do have a protocol for people over a certain height, (and even BMI), to be eligible for Business Class travel rather than Cattle Class at the back, Refer him back to his Manual Handling Training, did he stretch and warm up before trying to open the overhead locker and lift his case, he could have walked up the aisle a bit etc etc. Edited by user 22 April 2024 08:30:17(UTC)
| Reason: additions
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Being a bit facetious but does your manual handling training include overhead lockers? Properly assessed no one would actually use these.
Planes typically require passengers remain seated from landing until the aircraft comes to a complete stop at which point all the passengers jump up to disembark so unless you are the only person on your row the rest of the aircraft is in the way of a warm up.
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Being a bit facetious but does your manual handling training include overhead lockers? Properly assessed no one would actually use these.
Planes typically require passengers remain seated from landing until the aircraft comes to a complete stop at which point all the passengers jump up to disembark so unless you are the only person on your row the rest of the aircraft is in the way of a warm up.
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I should not say this really, but I think this falls into realm of “who cares?”. I am not convinced that this person is at work: they are travelling to and from work. If they were cabin crew that would be different. As the employer is not an airline with no input into the design and layout of plane cabins there is not much that they can do about unless they are willing to spend stupid money. Just moving people into business class is probably not enough. I suggest that a private jet where everything is loaded onto the plane while the passengers wait in the lounge drinking fizz. That’s not going to happen! … and I don’t think that there is any expectation from anyone that it should.
|
3 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Palmer20061 According to INDG453 (a (very!) brief guide to RIDDOR) accidents are 'a separate, identifiable..incident that caused physical injury'. So having a 'bad back' is not a RIDDOR unless there is a specific, identifiable, incident that caused this.
(Not that the HSE website RIDDOR guidance now refers you to INDG453. You have to somehow know this already exisits and search for it to see if it's still valid/published)
Thanks, Palmer. Would you not report it then, even though the 'back injury' resulted in over a 7-day absence?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
When i posted my original reply i read your email as he had identified a specific incident - i realise now i may have misread - If hes just saying his back hurt after a days work then the HSE would not expect a report. If he identifying a single moment in time they would. As peter says not strictly what it says in the regs, just HSEs interpretation and only a court can say if right or wrong.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I always apply the three tests for deciding if an incident was work related. As just because an accident happened at work does not make it reportable. Extract from RIDDOR Guidance Reporting accidents and incidents at work: A brief guide to the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR) INDG453 (hse.gov.uk) Work-related accidents For the purposes of RIDDOR, an accident is a separate, identifiable, unintended incident that causes physical injury. This specifically includes acts of nonconsensual violence to people at work. Not all accidents need to be reported, a RIDDOR report is required only when:
■ the accident is work-related; and ■ it results in an injury of a type which is reportable (as listed under ‘Types of reportable injuries’).
When deciding if the accident that led to the death or injury is work-related, the key issues to consider are whether the accident was related to:
■ the way the work was organised, carried out or supervised;
■ any machinery, plant, substances or equipment used for work; and
■ the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened. If none of these factors are relevant to the incident, it is likely that a report will not be required
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Reported Cole33 at #17 we dont need hyperlinks to cannabis
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Reported Cole33 at #17 we dont need hyperlinks to cannabis
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Roundtuit - well spotted! Though a site selling "weed seed" could be trying to spread dandelions.
|
1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
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.