WRULD DB-Claimant: Barry David Roberts

Case	Task	Injury	Date	Court	Judgment for
Horridge & Roberts - v - Gan Insurance Co Ltd	DSE use: reading & data enquiry	Pain Syndrome	21 Sep 2001	Birmingham County	Defendant

The two Claimants, one male and the other female, had been employed by the Defendant from 1993 and 1991 respectively as an insurance handler and a claims negotiator. The Claimants' work initially involved "the accumulation and filing of considerable quantities of documents and paper", however, in 1995 the Defendants moved over to a Document Imaging Processing system whereby files were transferred onto computer so that the system became "wholly computerised and virtually paperless".

In their pleaded cases the Claimants alleged they were required to perform rapid repetitive and unrelieved operations at the workstation and on a computer, with poor posture and with few if any natural breaks. At trial the case was amended to one that alleged that the Claimants were required to perform unrelieved operations at the workstation and on a computer. The Defendant complained extensively about the change of the case, asserting that the new cases had not emerged at the instigation of any expert witnesses but out of recognition that the original cases were not likely to succeed. Counsel for the Defendant argued that the written reports including the joint reports reflected the issues relevant to the original case. HH Judge Brunning took the view that the Court and the Defendant were not disadvantaged by the change of approach.

HH Judge Brunning noted that regulation 4 of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 applied to the Claimants' work but went on to say:

It is in my judgment quite clear that there is a substantial variety in the work. There are various tasks which will from time to time be required to be done. Files will be put up on the screen. Correspondence will be read and replies written. Telephone calls will be received and made. Documents will have to be analysed and notes made about the consequence of that analysis. There is bound to be a substantial amount of reading where the only activity will be to scroll up or down using the mouse or the keyboard. What is quite clear is that there is nothing remotely approaching continuous use of the keyboard required to do the job which both the Claimants were doing. I am also satisfied on the evidence before me that the work system was one which left the individual complete discretion when he left his desk and for what period of time he was away from his desk.

Having considered the evidence of the Ergonomics Experts, HH Judge Brunning says:

I am satisfied, having considered the regulations and the nature of the Claimants' employment, that the Defendants were not required to institute a regime of rest breaks and pauses in order to discharge their statutory duty to the Claimants. The nature of the work was so widely varied, and natural breaks occurred so frequently within it, that there was no negligence in failing to take steps of the kind asserted in the Particulars of Claim. Accordingly the claims must fail at this hurdle.

HH Judge Brunning concludes his Judgment by referring to the absence of evidence that would enable a Claimant to prove a demonstrable link between an established pattern of work and the occurrence of physical damage.

V1.01

Last updated: 16/10/2009