WRULD DB-Claimant: Lorna Ann Millard
| Case | Task | Injury | Date | Court | Judgment for |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Millard - v - Murray Lawrence & Partners Ltd | DSE use: audio typing | Pain Syndrome | 4 May 2000 | Colchester County | Defendant |
The Claimant, an audio typist, sought damages for what is described in the County Court Judgment as "diffuse pain in her upper limbs" and as "regional upper limb pain problems". In the Judgment in May 2000, HH Judge Brandt states:
Summarised her case is that her condition has been caused by the failure on the part of the Defendants to carry out the duties imposed upon them to take reasonable care for her as their employee, such duty being imposed initially by Common Law and from 1 January 1993 by Statute additionally.
Her clear and unequivocal evidence to me was that she reached her present unhappy state of health by mid 1993 since when there has been little change and certainly no improvement. She complains that from January 1991 onwards she and the other audio typists were the victims of a regime comprised of pressure, neglect and lack of sympathy.
HH Judge Brandt goes on to say:
Putting the matter very shortly, if in my judgment the Claimant succeeds in convincing me that by mid 1993 or thereabouts she was suffering from diffuse pain in her upper limbs as accepted by the medical experts in 1997 and 1998 then her claim succeeds.
If this premise were established she would have no difficulty in persuading me that the upper limb disorder was work related so that I would be looking at a classic case of WRULD. Moreover she would have no difficulty in persuading me that the WRULD was caused more or less by all the failings on the part of her employers of which she makes complaints.
(a) The absence of any risk assessment.
(b) The failure to train her to report symptoms.
(c) The failure to ensure proper rest breaks.
(d) The failure to provide work rotation.
(e) The intensity of typing. I have reservations about this particular complaint.
Having explained his reservations about complaint (e) and dismissed two other complaints concerning poor posture and inadequate or unsafe equipment, HH Judge Brandt states:
It is of course sufficient for the Claimant to establish one or more of complaints (a) to (e) and I agree with the ergonomists that if the Claimant suffered injury by reason of these failures on the part of her employers to take care for her safety, then these injuries were in 1991 and onwards entirely foreseeable.
After reviewing the medical evidence and evidence relating to the Claimant's work load, HH Judge Brandt states:
All of this material satisfies me that any upper limb disorder dates from no earlier than 9 May 1994. I am satisfied that I can safely reject the Claimant's case in relation to anything that happened before then.
That of course does not end the matter. The Claimant will still succeed if she can persuade me that the symptoms which she developed from May 1994 onwards are attributable to negligence and/or breach of statutory duty on the part of these employers. True it is that no risk assessment was carried out until December 1994. However largely by chance the Defendants were in fact doing all the right things. The typing work load was very far from excessive. There were numerous breaks away from the desk whilst she performs the various "office junior" type tasks which she disliked. The work may not have been strictly rotated but it was highly varied and not in the least repetitive. The volume of actual keyboarding was a long way below anything that would bother either of the ergonomists.
There may have been no set tea or coffee breaks but all the staff took tea or coffee and took what are euphemistically called "comfort" breaks. From the end of 1993 I have no doubt that far from being pressurised the typing department was actively being run down. There is no evidence that either her equipment or her posture were causative of any injury.
HH Judge Brandt concluded that the Claimant had failed to prove that she had suffered any upper limb disorder before May 1994 and that, on the balance of probabilities, any upper limb disorder suffered from May 1994 and continuing through to April 1995 was not attributable to any fault on the part of her employer.
V2.01
Last updated: 16/10/2009