Search form

Fainting is Recordable Even If Caused by Non-Recordable Event

By Tressi L. Cordaro
  • November 20, 2015

Fainting is recordable under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s injury reporting rules, even if the loss-of-consciousness is due to a non-recordable injury incurred at work, the agency said in an interpretation letter to a West Virginia retailer.

The retailer’s inquiry described an employee who had scratched his index finger on a vinyl saw clamp at work. As a coworker began to apply a Band-Aid to the area, the injured employee observed a small amount of blood on his finger, became light-headed and fainted. Upon regaining consciousness, he explained he had fainted because he cannot tolerate the sight of blood. No additional injury occurred and no other treatment was necessary.

The employer, Simonton Windows & Doors of Parkersburg, asked OSHA if the incident had to be recorded on the OSHA 300 form, known as the Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses.

The reply from the head of OSHA’s Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Amanda Edens, was an unequivocal “Yes.” Referencing OSHA’s injury and illness reporting and recording rule at 29 CFR § 1904.7(b)(6), she noted that employers must record a work-related injury or illness if a worker becomes unconscious, regardless of how long the employee remains unconscious.

“The fact that a Band-Aid, which is included on the list of [non-recordable] first aid treatments in section 1904.7(b)(5)(i), was first applied to treat the employee is not relevant in this case,” Edens said.

“[W]hen the employee fainted, the case met the general recording criteria in section 29 C.F.R. § 1904.7(b)(1)(v) and therefore must be recorded,” she concluded.

Besides loss of consciousness, general recording criteria under the rule include death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, and medical treatment beyond first aid.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

February 21, 2018

Maine Recreational Marijuana Law Limits Drug Testing, Disciplinary Consequences Imposed by Employers

February 21, 2018

A provision of Maine’s recreational marijuana law prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions for off-premises marijuana use, as of February 1, 2018. This law effectively prevents Maine employers from testing for marijuana for pre-employment purposes. The law also affects employers who employ employees subject to federal... Read More

January 29, 2018

Fitness Industry Workplace Law Update – Winter 2018

January 29, 2018

Welcome to our premiere issue! Our goal is to keep fitness industry clients and contacts informed about employment and labor law issues that may affect your organizations. We hope you find this newsletter valuable and invite you to share it with interested colleagues and contacts. In this issue, we provide a brief summary of hot... Read More

January 24, 2018

2018: The Year Ahead for Employers

January 24, 2018

An executive summary of recent changes in workplace law and a look ahead to 2018. Read More

Related Practices