WRULD DB-Claimant: Mrs Geraldine Wells-Cockburn

Case	Task	Injury	Date	Court	Judgment for
Wells-Cockburn -v- The Bristol Debt Advice Centre and another	DSE use: word processing	Pain Syndrome	15 Aug 2008	Bristol County	Defendant

Mrs Wells-Cockburn unsuccessfully claimed damages of in excess of £200,000 for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of her employment as a Secretary for a small charity. It was alleged that she was typing too intensely and was under pressure and that, in the period leading up to her symptoms, her hours significantly increased and the intensity of her typing increased. It was claimed that this created a foreseeable risk of injury that required risk assessments, training and careful handling of the Claimant's workloads and working conditions. Mrs Wells-Cockburn is described in the Judgment as suffering from a 'pain syndrome'.

It was accepted that in late 2003 the Claimant developed symptoms in her right wrist and then in her forearms. The pain was intermittent at first, but on 18th May 2004 the Claimant consulted her GP and took some time off. This seemed to resolve the situation, but when she returned her symptoms got worse. She went off work on a permanent basis and the symptoms continued to get worse. Mr Recorder Abbott refers to the medical notes as showing "a history for this lady of considerable visits to the doctor over the years and frequent complaint about pain" and suggests that "this lady was - to put it neutrally - susceptible to pain".

In reviewing the medical records, Mr Recorder Abbott notes that when Mrs Wells-Cockburn consulted her GP on 18th May 2004 complaining of wrist pain, her GP said it was "likely RSI" and that "repetitive strain injury" is referred to "again and again as she goes through 2004". Mr Recorder Abbott refers to the diagnosis of RSI as "probably unfortunate because it set in motion a belief that this is undoubtedly a repetitive strain injury caused by her work, and it is one of the features of litigation that that can produce a sort of spiral out of which we cannot get".

Mrs Wells-Cockburn claim that she was typing 80% to 90% of the time is referred to in the Judgment as clearly "likely to be an exaggeration". The intensity of the typing was found to be not any more than is normal for a busy office and that there was nothing abnormal, unusual, or any significant increase in the workload of the Claimant up until the time when she says she was experiencing symptoms. Mr Recorder Abbott concluded while there was no evidence the Claimant was malingering "there must be a significant psychological overlay as far as her condition is concerned, and that although it is hard to say that she is exaggerating, there is certainly an exaggeration of the extent of her condition".

Early in the Judgment, Mr Recorder Abbott notes that the Defendant is not a large company with huge resources and that the test to be applied in such cases is not an absolute one. This perhaps explains why even though both Ergonomics Experts called to give evidence described the risk assessments undertaken by the Defendant as inadequate and not in accordance with the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulation, there was no finding of any breach of statutory duty or negligence.

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

....... it has been unfortunate that from the very moment she went to see her GP she has been told that she has repetitive strain injury, which has tended to motivate and fuel this litigation in a way which, at the end of the day, may have really made everybody take their eye off the ball.

V2.01

Last updated: 16/10/2009