Occupational Health

[Vicky Houston]

Has anyone had any dealings with being referred to occupational health by their employer? i am a little worried about getting referred and don't know enough about it, is it possible i could loose my job?

Any info or experiances will help

[Sweet]

Vicky,

Hey there. My experiences with OH have all been positive, although i was exactly the same as you in worrying about what they were going to say. They are there to help you to work though, not to make you lose your job!

In an office environment they can give you help and support with office furniture and PC equipment etc. For me as a nurse they looked at shift patterns and it is because of this that i don't do a week of nights anymore. I have a night off in the middle of seven which means that i get a rest from my lenses, as it is hard when you are tired and working nights anyway.

We are covered under the disability act so that we can't be sacked just because we have KC. This does mean though that you do need to have enough vision to do your job, but that if you take some sick leave as i did last year because of overwearing lenses that you can't be sacked because of it.

I hope that you have a good OH representative as they really can help! Just be honest with them and write down any areas which you think would help you at work. You might need to do a quick vision test as i did to make sure that i could read a drug chart. It was just a few lines of an eye chart in a book.

Best of luck with it and let us know how you get on! ... Sweet X x X

[GarethB]

Vicky,

Download the employer leaflet and hand that to the occupational health, this was not around 2 years ago so I used the student leaflet woth my OH.

They were really good and helped me with an assesment of my work station and lsitend to what I had to say. I now have things in place at work for bad eye days which means i can be just as prodcutive.

All my collegue were made aware of what problems I might have and this was recorded in their training records. Safety and office houskeeping is much improved with practicly nothing in walk ways, bins have been moved and it has improved the environment no end.

Your employer has a legal responsibility to amke reasonable adjustments and you have an equal responsibility to try the adjustments and make a case for why those changes are not helping. As we know the condition better than they, then they are very relient on how we communicate the issues so it will often seem that it is us with KC doing all the hardwork.

Anne Klepatz the Support Group Cahirperson has loads more information that can help you and the employers, Access To Woork scheme is there to help us and employers foot the bill for changes, Action for The Blind and the RNIB are there to offer advice and assesments and not forgetting the local job centre Disabilities Officer is there to help emplyees and emplyers alike.

Since the KC impacted on my employemnt 2 years ago, my employers have allowed me to do thing that before they would never ave considerd me for and th whole experience has been positive and my career has gone from strength to strength.

Hope this helps.

[John Smith]

Vicky, I agree. Occupational Health are your friends.

I too was concerned about being reprimanded at my trip to OH; but the chap there considered my case and announced that he'd write to my managers telling them that the Disability Discrimination Act applies to me.

I've also had screen and lighting improvements following a trip to OH.

So enjoy your chat, and don't be scared - you'll probably get more out of the visit than they will!

[Vicky Houston]

Thanks for all the comments i feel slightly more at easy now. I shall post back and let you all know how i got on after my assesment.
I have to say i am so please this forum is avaliable to share any worries and help each other its been a great help to me.

[Andrew MacLean]

My 'emloyer' arranges for us all to see Hoccupational Health on a biennial basis. but it was not occupational health that brought about the big change for me in the provision of KC friendly equipment for my study. That came from a combination of the consultant ophthalmologist, my employer's hr department and the access to work team at the job centre.

Andrew

[K Man]

Can someone please clarify and substatiate with any relevant documentation (please add links) that a person with KC is (with or without driving standard vision, post graft etc)

1. considered disabled
2. covered by DDA
3. any other considerations

As I understood it, you are not considered disabled until you fail the driving standard eye test.

It would be a very good idea to state this clearly on this site under a "Your legal rights and status" section, as it seems a grey area to most employers and most with KC and can cause great concern.

If it turns out that a person with everyday KC is not considered under the DDA, then this ORG should be petitioning someone to do so, because if you have to spend time withiout lenes you most certainly are disabled.

Its not a good idea to have to argue your case on an individual basis after an event of discrimination. The law should have blanket coverage, whatever your level of vision (as this will be poor if lenses are required). The GREY AREA should be made black and white.

K

[Sweet]

Sorry i don't have any documents, but i know that the driving standard is with at least one eye reading 6/12 (well it is actually 6/14 but there isn't a line for that). You also need good peripheral vision which is why people with cataracts have problems.

You might need to do a visual field test to let them assess this. I passed having vision in one eye only, but being able to see enough of a blur with the other to know if someone was running to the side of me!

Sweet X x X

[John Smith]

K man,

This is a thorny issue which does come up from time to time.

I would not expect those with subclinical KC to be classed as disabled, and likely such a person would be shocked to even consider it.

The rules under the DDA are quite clear as to that act's definition of disabled. Substantial, Chronic condition "has lasted or is likely to last for at least 12 months".

It is certainly worth pointing out that "[url=http://www.drc-gb.org/pdf/DefnOfDisability.pdf]nor does entitlement to the
protection of the Act confer eligibility for benefits, or concessions[/url]."

The same document also states that you are covered by the DDA if you are "A person who is certified as blind or partially sighted by a
consultant ophthalmologist, or is registered as such with a
local authority." If you're not certificated, then you can still be covered by the act, but it is a matter for consideration.

I have seen the "failing the driving test" test for disability, that was on a page citing eligibility for travel concessions; and you don't have to actually fail the test; just to be certain to fail it if you actually took it is considered good enough.

[K Man]

Thanks John

To demonstrate a point I will give 3 examples.

1. A person has a broken leg has a walking disabillity, BUT, are likley to recover within a certain amount of time, less than a year.This case will never be considered as disabled.

2. A person with KC, requiring contact lenses, whose condition is beyond specticle back up has reduced vision whilst unable to wear contacts due to infection/soreness/whatever thus is disabled for that period. However, unlike the broken leg scinario, reasons for not being able to wear the contact lens can frequently reoccur many times during the year. But this case will never be considered as disabled, until they fail to meet the driving test standard whilst wearing lenses.

3. A person with a mental disorder can be perfectly fine for the majority of time, but every now and then suffers the effect of their disorder for short spells. This person will always be considered disabled.

Some with KC may have more in common with example 3 due to the unpredictabillity of when "down time" may occur, plus the time it can take to obtain and trial a new set of lenses if required.

No one with KC wants to be regarded as disabled, but the consequences of being unprotected adequatly by "grey areas" and interpretation of DDA guidlines is unfair.

Which is why the condition, when it reaches a certain level, needs clairification as far as DDA is concerened.

I wondered if the KC Org committe had any views or made any representation.

thanks

K