Jane Fraser looks at the responsibility employers have for long-term mental health repercussions of workplace accidents, and asks to what extent should businesses consider mental wellbeing as part of their wider health and safety policies?

In 1996, maintenance engineer Thomas Corr was working to repair a fault on a malfunctioning car panel production machine. Without warning, the machine picked up a panel, swung around and severed his right ear. Had he not instinctively moved his head to avoid the machinery, he could have been decapitated. The resulting tinnitus and severe headaches had implications on his mental stability as he slowly spiralled into depression. Some six years later, Mr Corr committed suicide by jumping from the top floor of a multi-storey car park as a result of his mental state.

The decline of Mr Corr’s mental health and the emotional distress of the young family he left behind, should be a catalyst for employers to review the procedures they have in place following a work-related injury. The duty of care to employees extends not only to physical consequences, but also the future psychological impact of an incident.

Last month, the House of Lords, together with the Court of Appeal, agreed Mr Corr’s employer was ultimately responsible for his death, despite him committing suicide so long after the incident. The verdict ends a lengthy legal battle for Mr Corr’s widow, who claimed compensation for her husband’s severe depression, which the employer had admitted was a reasonably forseeable consequence of the incident.

There was also uncontested evidence showing suicide is committed by 10% to 17% of those diagnosed with severe depression. Therefore, there was a connection between the employer’s negligence resulting in the accident and Mr Corr’s death. In light of this verdict, what should an employee be entitled to expect of their employer following an injury at work?

Take the initiative

Early intervention and proactive communication will be key components of a successful rehabilitation and recovery, with assistance being offered to the injured employee as soon as possible after injury occurs, to help prevent any health issues which could arise.

Employers should not be scared into action by Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigations surrounding the incident. Instead, they should be taking the initiative and acting before problems arise in the first instance. Any internal investigations into an accident will carry on regardless, while the focus of the HR team should remain on the welfare of the employee in question.

Ideally, there will be no let-up in the level of care the staff member receives until they feel able to return to their position and safely fulfil their duties without posing harm to themselves or the employees around them.

A clear policy, developed in conjunction with either employee representatives or trade unions, should be the foundation of approaching employee care after an accident.

Policies should recognise there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution to dealing with the physical and emotional consequences of a workplace injury and this should not sit in isolation. It should, instead, be integrated with absence management, disability and retirement policies.

The offer of appropriate counselling, rehabilitation or other treatment services will be one method of providing the support required to employees who suffer a workplace injury. Additionally, for those with an occupational health function, a referral should be made. Lines of responsibility should be clearly defined in a policy, ensuring everyone in a business knows their role in providing both a safe working environment and appropriate after-care for those involved in accidents.

In the case of Mr Corr, more than a year before his death, a chartered clinical psychologist stated that he would benefit from an apology from his employers. Tragically, such an apology did not appear until the company was ‘shamed into giving it’ by the Court of Appeal, far too late to be of any assistance to the deceased. In delivering his judgment, one of the judges stated that he wished the word ‘sorry’ would find its place in employer’s vocabulary more frequently, since, in human relations terms, it can mean a great deal and costs much less than a legal battle or settlement later on.

Likewise, other steps employers can take to support injured employees should not be thought of as expensive in financial terms. In fact, these should be seen as cost-efficient in both economic and, more importantly, human terms.

The HSE estimates almost 30,000 people leave work permanently each year because of workplace injury or illness and while work-related suicide is relatively rare, it is still estimated that more than 100 workers a year take their own life because of factors including injury, over-abundance of deadlines, workload and stress.

Rehabilitation process

In addition, the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees can be used to guide the rehabilitation process. Individuals should be given the opportunity of a phased return to work. Changes to work tasks or job content can be considered, or even a change in job location, whether on a temporary or permanent basis, if the individual cannot face the prospect of returning to the scene of the incident which caused the injury. Training should also be offered if this serves to help rebuild an employee’s confidence and ability.

Of course, treating the individual employee and the symptoms of the injury is one thing, but the cause of the injury must also be addressed. Lessons should be learned, health and safety procedures tightened and improvements implemented.

Both business and employee cannot afford repeat injury situations. On one hand it reflects badly on the employer through bad press or costly court settlements. On the other, workers will lose confidence in their company and will feel reluctant to fulfil their duties in what they would consider an unsafe environment.

Mr Corr’s wife lost her husband, and his children lost their father. The liability for accidents at work go far beyond the immediate consequences and employers should ensure they take action to quash any future health issues, be they physical or mental.

This support should fully provide for the specific nature of the employees’ injury and not exist as a generic rehabilitation program, in a bid to provide effective care for those recovering after a workplace accident. Only through tight, empathetic polices aimed at injured victims of employer or worker negligence, can a business ensure situations such as the Corr case do not return to haunt them several years later.

Jane Fraser is the head of employment, pensions and benefits at Maclay Murray & Spens.