Citation

Kitulwatte IDG, Edirisinghe PS. Indian J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2020; 24(2): 55-59.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2020, Indian Association of Occupational Health, Publisher Medknow Publications)

DOI

10.4103/ijoem.IJOEM_81_20

PMID

33281372 PMCID

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: A reasonable number of workman injuries are reported for medicolegal examination every year. In addition to report on the degree of severity and consistency of the injuries with the historical evidence, the medical officers are expected to opine on degree of disability as well. However, routine Medicolegal Examination Form or Report used in Sri Lanka to report these cases does not carry a section for disability or impairment.

Objective: To gain an insight into the pathology of workplace injuries and to evaluate the role of medicolegal examination and reporting among the victims presented with injuries at work.

Methods: A retrospective descriptive study was carried out on workmen who were referred for medicolegal examination during a period of 5 years in a Tertiary Care Hospital in the Western Province of Sri Lanka.

Results: Out of 172 subjects who got injured at work, none had claimed for a report of compensation. 47% (81) of the injured workers were in the age group of 19-30 years. 81% (139) were males. Factory workers were the most vulnerable workers (34%) followed by drivers (15%). A majority 39% (67) of injuries were located on upper limbs. 52% (90) of the victims had grievous injuries. However, a majority 61% (105) had no permanent disability.

Conclusions: Disability is not a direct reflection of the category of hurt. Therefore, testifying on routine medicolegal reports on cases of workman compensation will not serve justice to the patient.

Language: en

Keywords

disability; injury; Category of hurt; medicolegal examination; workman