The facts
- An employee eats a chicken salad they made at home and brought in, and is violently ill within hours.
- A physician diagnoses food poisoning and prescribes an anti-emetic.
- They miss the next day of work.
The determination
Not recordable
Excluded from work-relatedness by 1904.5(b)(2)(iv), 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 (iv) applies.
29 CFR § 1904.5(b)(2)(iv)The injury or illness is solely the result of an employee eating, drinking, or preparing food or drink for personal consumption (whether bought on the employer's premises or brought in). For example, if the employee is injured by choking on a sandwich while in the employer's establishment, the case would not be considered work-related.
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
Work-relatedness is defeated here before any of the recording criteria matter. The rule excludes illness resulting solely from an employee eating, drinking or preparing food for personal consumption — and it says explicitly that this holds whether the food was bought on the premises or brought in.
Note how much is being given up: this employee lost a day of work and was prescribed medication. Both are 1904.7(a) criteria. Neither matters, because a case that is not work-related never reaches 1904.7 at all.
The exception is narrow in one direction that catches employers out. If the employer supplied the food, or if workplace contaminants got into it, the case is work-related — and then the day away makes it recordable.
The provisions this turns on
In the regulation's own words
The injury or illness is solely the result of an employee eating, drinking, or preparing food or drink for personal consumption (whether bought on the employer's premises or brought in). For example, if the employee is injured by choking on a sandwich while in the employer's establishment, the case would not be considered work-related.
Change one fact
If the employer had catered the lunch
Food poisoning from food supplied by the employer is work-related. The exception no longer applies, and the day away from work then makes the case recordable under 1904.7(a).
The determination on those facts instead
Recordable
Recordable — the case meets the 1904.7(a) criterion: Days away from work.
Criteria met
- • Days away from work
- • Medical treatment beyond first aid
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
Does the case meet one or more of the general recording criteria in 1904.7(a)?
Yes — Days away from work; Medical treatment beyond first aid.
29 CFR § 1904.7(a)(a) Basic requirement. You must consider an injury or illness to meet the general recording criteria, and therefore to be recordable, if it results in any of the following: death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness. You must also consider a case to meet the general recording criteria if it involves a significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or other licensed health care professional, even if it does not result in death, days away from work, restricted work or job transfer, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.
29 CFR § 1904.7(b)(5)Not on the exhaustive first-aid list. Only NON-prescription medication at non-prescription strength is first aid — 1904.7(b)(5)(ii)(A).
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.