Job13
Sign inCheck a case

OSHA interpretation · 1992-09-24

Recording eye injury cases on the OSHA Log 200.

← All interpretations§ 1904

OSHA’s standing caveat

Interpretation letters explain existing requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. Enforcement guidance may be affected by later changes to OSHA rules, and a letter addresses the facts it was given — not necessarily yours.

September 24, 1992 Ms. Linda Ballas EMTS 4413 Copper Creek Lane Toledo, Ohio 43615 Dear Linda: Thank you for your letter dated July 17 requesting an interpretation for recording eye injury cases on the OSHA Log 200. Please excuse our delay in responding. Any form of removal of foreign bodies embedded in the eye is considered medical treatment for recordkeeping purposes, as is stated on page 43 of the Recordkeeping Guidelines for Occupational Injuries and Illnesses . This would include any technique to remove rust ring from the cornea. If the foreign body is not embedded , removal by means of irrigation or the use of a cotton swab are considered first aid. It came to our attention after the writing of the Guidelines that the use of a cotton swab is a means of removal as simple and effective as the use of irrigation. Any other means of removal must be considered medical treatment, e.g spuds, etc. Question 1: Is removal of a foreign body from the eyelid >recordable if other than flushing is used? (i.e. moist cotton swab) Answer: Foreign bodies in the eyelid should be evaluated using the criteria associated with removal of "foreign bodies from wound" rather than from the eye. If the procedure for removal is complicated because of depth of embedment, size, or location, than it should be considered medical treatment. If the procedure is uncomplicated and done by simple means (e.g. irrigation, cotton swab, etc.) it should be considered first aid. Question 2: Is removal of a foreign body from the eye recordable if other than flushing is used? (i.e. moist cotton swab) Answer: If removal of a non-embedded foreign body from the eye is done by means other than irrigation or the use of a cotton swab, the case must be recorded. Question 3: What if the medical personnel believe the foreign body does not appear to be embedded and does not believe irrigation is required, and instead uses a moist cotton swab on the eye or eyelid? Is this medical treatment or first aid? Answer: If removal of a non-embedded foreign body from the eye is done by the means of irrigation or the use of a cotton swab, it should be considered first aid. I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions, please contact my staff at Area Code (202) 523-1463. Sincerely, Stephen A. Newell Acting Director Office of Statistics

Reproduced verbatim from osha.gov. US Government work, public domain (17 U.S.C. § 105).

Other letters on the same sections

Deciding a case of your own?

The free recordability check works through Part 1904 in the order the regulation sets out and quotes the provision behind every step.

Check a case — free

Not legal advice. This page republishes 29 CFR Part 1904 as published by the eCFR and explains it. The recordkeeping duty is the employer’s. Where the rule requires judgement, Job13 says so rather than guessing — run your own case through the free check.