WRULD DB-Plaintiff: Maria Mility (aka Wilson)

Case	Task	Injury	Date	Court	Judgment for
Mility - v - F W Farnsworth (t/a SPD) (aka Wilson -v- Pork Farms)	Pressing pizza dough into pans	Cervical Spondylosis	22 Dec 1998	Derby County	Plaintiff

The Plaintiff began her employment at the Defendant's factory in Nottingham on the 24 June 1989 applying toppings to pizzas. By July 1989 she was preparing Deep Pan pizzas, which involved repeated thumb and finger movements pressing the dough into the pan. She worked from 7.30 am until 5.00 pm with three breaks during the working day.

On the 25 June 1998, the Plaintiff was absent from work for a day with a pain in her shoulder. On her return, a Notification of Absence form was completed in which the Plaintiff declared that she was absent due to "pain in shoulder". In November 1998, the Plaintiff moved to working on the 9 inch pizza base line. The working system involved a number of operatives working in a team on either side of the line, each rotating through different working operations so that in the course of about one and a half hours each operative had moved through all the different jobs. The purpose of this system of rotation appears to have been an attempt to alleviate the inherent boredom of the work.

In December 1990, the Plaintiff reported suffering neck pain to her supervisor. Later that evening she visited a hospital. The doctor at the hospital did not indicate what the cause of the pain might be but she was given a cervical collar and took off the rest of the week (4 working days). She said that the following week she returned to work although she did not feel completely better. She did not wear the collar at work because she did not wish to draw attention to herself and so she simply tied a scarf round her neck. On her return, she completed another Notice of Absence which read "stiff neck had to wear collar". The Plaintiff did not go and see her own doctor because by the time she returned to work she was feeling a lot better. She did not really think her discomfort was in any way connected with her work. After she had filled in the form, no one at the factory asked her about her stiff neck.

The next incident of any significance occurred on the 4 January 1992 when the Plaintiff was again off work with a bad neck. The Notification of Absence gave the reason for the absence as "bad neck". On the 6 January, the Plaintiff visited her doctor complaining of neck and shoulder pain. In evidence, the Plaintiff said that she did not tell people at work of the discomfort she was experiencing before February 1992 because she did not think that the discomfort was connected with her employment. However, when in early 1992, the symptoms got worse and she went to her doctor she began to think for the first time that the pain was attributable to work.

On the 5 February 1992, the Plaintiff again took time off work. On this occasion she remained off work until early April due to neck pain and her own doctor said that her discomfort was work related. On the 18 February the Plaintiff was seen by the Defendant's doctor. Very shortly after her return to work, the Plaintiff again became incapacitated on the 22 April. On the 5 October 1992, the Plaintiff was seen by the company doctor, who diagnosed cervical spondylosis. She was told to avoid repetitive movements. In February 1993, the Plaintiff was made redundant against her wishes.

After considering the extensive evidence concerning the company's knowledge at the material time and their practices, HH Judge Orrell concluded the Defendant ought to have devised a scheme to ensure that a system of rotation was implemented, which was designed to reduce the risk of strain through repetition. In addition, the Defendant ought to have educated the workforce to recognise and report early symptoms. HH Judge Orrell found, on the balance of probabilities, that had the Defendant taken those two preventive steps, the Plaintiff would have remained free of symptoms.

The Plaintiff was awarded damages totalling over £190,000. In October 1999, some 10 months after the Judgment, this case received considerable press coverage in which: the Plaintiff was referred to as Maria Wilson; the Defendant was referred to as Pork Farms; and the Plaintiff's injury was described as "Repetitive Strain Injury".

V1.01

Last updated: 16/10/2009