WRULD DB-Claimant: Mrs Jayne Evans
| Case | Task | Injury | Date | Court | Judgment for |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evans - Virgin Atlantic Airways | Performing Shiatsu massage | Impingement Syndrome, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome | 10 Mar 2011 | London High | Claimant |
This was one of two very similar claims that were evidently heard in the High Court at the same time (see Hindmarch v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd), but which resulted in separate Judgments. These two claims also have much in common with King v Virgin Atlantic Airways in which Judgment was given in the County Court in October 2005. As in the other two similar claims, breach of duty was evidently admitted, but it is not explained in the Judgment why this concession was made. Given that the only issues at trial were causation and quantum, most of the Judgment is taken up with a review of the medical evidence and an examination of the issues relating to the appropriate level of damages.
The opening paragraph of the Judgment refers to Jayne Evans seeking damages to compensate her for the work related upper limb disorder that she was diagnosed as suffering from during the course of her employment with the Defendant as a beauty therapist, undertaking extensive and prolonged massage treatments to air passengers travelling on the Defendant's airline. However, it is clear from subsequent passages in the Judgment that Jayne Evans suffered from more than simply a 'work related upper limb disorder'.
The Judgment provides the following brief chronology:
| January 1996 | the Claimant attended her GP reporting pain in the left back lumbar region, five years no relief with osteopath and chiropractor. Pain in the evening. Pain relieved by lying down. |
| May 1999 | X-ray, orthopaedic referral and advice about back pain. |
| October 2002 | the Claimant commenced work with the Defendant as a passenger service agent working part time. |
| July 2005 | the Claimant commenced work for the Defendant as a full-time beauty therapist. |
| September 2005 | the Claimant was signed off for two weeks and then returned to light duties. |
| October 2005 | the Claimant undertook a massage for a particular passenger that she reported as causing her significant pain and led to her being sent home. |
| May 2006 | the Claimant underwent subacromial decompression of the left shoulder after which her shoulder symptoms substantially resolved. |
| July 2006 | the Claimant was redeployed by the Defendant on medical grounds to its cargo division, initially full-time, but thereafter reducing first to four days and then to three days a week with effect from 1 September 2009. |
| November 2007 | the Claimant was involved in a road traffic accident. |
| April 2008 | the Claimant underwent an operation for the excision of a ganglion from her left wrist and a carpal tunnel decompression. |
The Judgment records that the Medical Experts were agreed there was excess stress put through the shoulders and upper arms of the Claimant and that this was exacerbated by the frequency with which therapists were required to give massages. They agreed that the Claimant suffered the following sets of symptoms: shoulder pain due to an impingement syndrome of the left shoulder; carpal tunnel syndrome with the presence of a ganglion on the volar aspect of the scaphoradial joint with dimensions of 6 by 4 by 6 mm, mechanical cervical and shoulder and mechanical back pain. They also agreed that the development of an impingement syndrome in the left shoulder and the subsequent requirement for an arthroscopic decompression of the shoulder was precipitated by the Claimant's employment as a beauty therapist. They noted that there was no past history of shoulder problems. Once the shoulder had been operated on, the shoulder symptoms settled down and resolved. They also agreed that the Claimant's time off work from September 2005 until the surgery in May 2006 and for a two-month period for recovery thereafter was entirely as a result of her work practices surrounding the delivery of the massage. They also agreed that the Claimant's previous back symptoms had resolved and were short-lived, and the Claimant must be regarded as having a vulnerable spine at the time of performing the massages, consistent with the evidence of minor degeneration, which was subsequently discovered.
However, the Medical Experts disagreed about: the origin of the ganglion and the development of the carpal tunnel syndrome and its relationship to the ganglion; the extent to which spinal symptoms were due to the Claimant's work; the extent to which the hand symptoms were related to the Claimant's work; the nature and extent of the ongoing symptoms and their effect and the extent to which the Claimant was disadvantaged in the open labour market.
Having reviewed the medical evidence, HH Judge McKenna found on the balance of probabilities that: although the Claimant's cervical and lumbar spine was vulnerable as a result of pre-existing degenerative change for which the Defendants were not responsible, it was the performance of her duties as a beauty therapist which caused the continuing symptoms complained of by the Claimant; the development of CTS was caused by the additional effect of the excess strain and movement in an already compromised wrist containing a ganglion; and that the offending work was responsible for the hand symptoms.
The Judgment records the following awards: £18,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity; £10,000 for loss of congenial employment; £28,310.86 for loss of earnings; £731.05 for travel expenses; £622.38 for private medical treatment; £3,275.61 for care and assistance; £200 for miscellaneous losses; £137,825.30 for loss of future earnings; £25,584 for pension loss; and £1,000 for future medication. The Solicitors acting on behalf of Jayne Evans reported the total damages (presumably including interest) as £230,972.08.
V1.02
Last updated: 14/05/2013