WRULD DB-Claimant: Susan Conyon

Case	Task	Injury	Date	Court	Judgment for
Conyon - v - Manor Bakeries Ltd	Packing cakes	Pain Syndrome	14 Nov 2000	Walsall County	Defendant

The County Court Judgment in this matter is devoted almost entirely to a determination of the conflicting medical evidence, which was considered as a "preliminary yet definitive issue". There is very little description of the allegedly injurious work and no discussion of the liability issues. It is simply noted in the Judgment that the Defendant was alleged to have been in breach of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations.

The contentious medical evidence is reflected in a passage in the Judgment in which Mr Recorder Aucott says:

Whereas Mr O'Driscoll feels competent to give opinions on liability based on the history he accepts, Mr Kay feels competent to hand down moral judgment on malingering patients being a burden to the health Service and to the taxpayer. I shall ignore their legal and moral opinions and concentrate on their medical expertise which is, after all, why they were produced as expert witnesses in the first place.

Towards the end of the Judgment, Mr Recorder Aucott says:

Accordingly, the Claimant has failed to satisfy me, on the balance of probability, that she suffered from work-related repetitive strain injury, or repetitive use effect syndrome, or that such was or remains the cause of her injuries. I specifically do not rule on the question of whether the Claimant is malingering. I have already said that she is prone to exaggerate both her case and, as I now find, her symptoms. Although I am prepared to accept she may well believe that she has symptoms which cause her to be off work, she fails to satisfy me on the medical evidence I have heard that those symptoms have a physical cause, whether related to work or otherwise.

It seems to me, therefore, that this claim must fail in any event, the Claimant having failed, in my judgment, to prove on the balance of probability any causative link between her symptoms and her work. In those circumstances it is unnecessary for me to consider the wider aspects of the case on liability, they being of no further relevance in this case.

Accordingly, the claim is dismissed pursuant to my powers under Part 3.2.L of the Civil Procedure Rules.

V1.01

Last updated: 16/10/2009