WRULD DB-Defendant: Anglia Harbours NHS Trust

Case	Date	Court	Claimant	Task	Injury	Judgment for
Cole - v - Anglia Harbours NHS Trust	16 Sep 1998	Central London County	Cole	DSE use: secretarial work	Tenosynovitis	Defendant

The Plaintiff had carried out secretarial work throughout her working life and was considered a hard-working and conscientious employee. She began working for the Great Yarmouth & Waveney Health Authority in September 1989, and in about September 1990 she became secretary to the then matron. In April 1993 she began working for the health care provisions manager, who gave her most of the work, but she also carried out some work for the service manager.

There was some dispute as to the number of hours the Plaintiff actually worked and as to how much time she was involved with purely keyboard work. She was contracted to work for four hours a day from nine until one, but she did a lot of overtime during 1993 and part of 1994. In addition to work for which the Plaintiff was paid she worked hours under a 'time off in lieu' system. The Plaintiff normally worked nine until one. She had a break when she went home more often than not, and often worked from 1.30 onwards to 5 pm, sometimes as late as 5.30.

HH Judge Butter found that, in general, the Plaintiff probably worked a little less than 36 hours a week, but that the hours varied from week to week. With respect to the amount of time at the keyboard, the Plaintiff had other tasks to perform, including answering the telephone, filing, faxing and photocopying, and natural breaks. HH Judge Butter concluded that, although the Plaintiff was doing a lot of keyboarding, it was rather less than she recalled and was probably in the region of 80 percent or so of her time at work. The evidence did not suggest there was anything particularly complex about the documents that the Plaintiff was required to type, but many of the letters and memoranda were wanted urgently. At times, the Plaintiff felt herself to be under a lot of pressure and claimed she took fewer breaks than she had before.

The Plaintiff alleged deficiencies in the system of work, including: an absence of breaks; an inappropriate desk height; that the chair did not adjust to an appropriate height and had an unsatisfactory back; and that there was an absence of training and information.

Although HH Judge Butter thought it would have been better if the Plaintiff had taken more breaks than she did, he was not satisfied that the Defendant was negligent or in breach of duty in this respect.

With respect to the desk height, the evidence indicated that it was within 1 mm of the most appropriate height in the British Standard. With respect to the chair, the evidence showed that it did not adjust to the appropriate standard, however, the Plaintiff agreed in evidence that she was comfortable in the position in which she sat. Nevertheless, HH Judge Butter concluded, on balance, that the Defendant was at fault in failing to provide a suitable chair. However, it was still necessary for the Plaintiff to establish that this, with other factors, caused harm to the Plaintiff.

It was accepted that the Plaintiff had no particular training or instruction in relation to her place of work. However, HH Judge Butter concluded that this would only be relevant if it were shown that she would have carried out her work differently if so trained or instructed. She was a highly experienced secretary and, with the possible exception of the position of the chair, he doubted whether instruction or training would have made any real difference.

The medical expert who gave evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff had provided a report in which he said the Plaintiff was suffering from repetitive strain injury. He also used the phrase "overuse syndrome", and he confirmed the diagnosis in his later report. As the evidence continued, he asserted that the proper diagnosis was tenosynovitis. However, there was no evidence of any swelling being observed by the Plaintiff, or by any doctor or physiotherapist. HH Judge Butter found that the contemporaneous records established that pain first occurred in the latter part of February of 1994, which was quite inconsistent with the allegation of tenosynovitis and the Plaintiff's complaints of continuing pain. HH Judge Butter preferred the evidence of the medical expert instructed on behalf of the Defendant and found that the Plaintiff had entirely failed to establish the condition upon which she sought to rely.

V1.01

Last updated: 16/10/2009