The facts
- Half the office has a heavy cold. An employee catches it and misses two days of work.
- They see a doctor, who confirms it is a viral upper respiratory infection and recommends rest and fluids.
- There is no doubt at all that they caught it at work.
The determination
Not recordable
Excluded from work-relatedness by 1904.5(b)(2)(viii), so it is not recordable.
Decision trail
- 01
Did an event or exposure in the work environment cause or contribute to the case?
Yes — presumed work-related, subject to the 1904.5(b)(2) exceptions.
29 CFR § 1904.5(a)(a) Basic requirement. You must consider an injury or illness to be work-related if an event or exposure in the work environment either caused or contributed to the resulting condition or significantly aggravated a pre-existing injury or illness. Work-relatedness is presumed for injuries and illnesses resulting from events or exposures occurring in the work environment, unless an exception in § 1904.5(b)(2) specifically applies.
- 02
Does a 1904.5(b)(2) exception apply?
Yes — exception (viii) applies.
29 CFR § 1904.5(b)(2)(viii)The illness is the common cold or flu (Note: contagious diseases such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, hepatitis A, or plague are considered work-related if the employee is infected at work).
Computed at build time by Job13’s engine from the facts above — not written by hand. Change the facts and re-run it yourself →
What is actually going on here — Job13's explanation
The common cold and flu are excluded by name, and the exclusion holds even when you can prove the employee caught it in the workplace. Two days away would ordinarily make a case recordable; here it does not, because the illness never clears the work-relatedness test.
The provision carries its own warning, though. It names tuberculosis, brucellosis, hepatitis A and plague as contagious diseases that ARE work-related if the employee is infected at work — and occupational tuberculosis has its own recording section at 1904.9.
So the reasoning cannot be generalised to "illnesses caught from colleagues are not recordable". It is specifically colds and flu.
The provisions this turns on
In the regulation's own words
The illness is the common cold or flu (Note: contagious diseases such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, hepatitis A, or plague are considered work-related if the employee is infected at work).
Change one fact
If it had been occupational tuberculosis instead
1904.9 makes an employee's TB infection recordable when they have been occupationally exposed to a known case of active tuberculosis — and it is a privacy-concern case.
The determination on those facts instead
Recordable
Recordable TB infection under 1904.11.
Criteria met
- • Occupational tuberculosis infection (1904.11)
Decision trail
- 01
Did an event or exposure in the work environment cause or contribute to the case?
Yes — presumed work-related, subject to the 1904.5(b)(2) exceptions.
29 CFR § 1904.5(a)(a) Basic requirement. You must consider an injury or illness to be work-related if an event or exposure in the work environment either caused or contributed to the resulting condition or significantly aggravated a pre-existing injury or illness. Work-relatedness is presumed for injuries and illnesses resulting from events or exposures occurring in the work environment, unless an exception in § 1904.5(b)(2) specifically applies.
- 02
Is this a new case?
Yes.
29 CFR § 1904.6(a)(a) Basic requirement. You must consider an injury or illness to be a “new case” if:
- 03
Has the employee been occupationally exposed to a known case of active TB and then developed an infection?
Yes — recordable under 1904.11.
29 CFR § 1904.11(a)(a) Basic requirement. If any of your employees has been occupationally exposed to anyone with a known case of active tuberculosis (TB), and that employee subsequently develops a tuberculosis infection, as evidenced by a positive skin test or diagnosis by a physician or other licensed health care professional, you must record the case on the OSHA 300 Log by checking the “respiratory condition” column.
Also note
- • 1904.11 cases are privacy-concern cases — omit the employee's name from the 300 Log (1904.29(b)(6)-(9)).
Your case is not this case
Scenarios are worked examples on stated facts. Small differences — who recommended the treatment, whether participation was voluntary, what the employee’s routine functions actually are — change the answer. Run your own facts, and the determination will show you which step decided it.
Check your case — freeNot 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.