WRULD DB-Defendant: Midland Bank plc

Case	Date	Court	Claimant	Task	Injury	Judgment for
Mulligan - v - Midland Bank plc	30 Jun 1997	Mayor's & City of London County	Mulligan	Keyboard use: audio & copy typing	De Quervain's Syndrome	Plaintiff

The Plaintiff started working for the Defendant as a secretary and clerk in 1984. Her duties consisted of typing for the branch manager, the branch senior clerk and the branch securities clerk. She also had various other administrative tasks, including telephone calls, filing and general duties involved in the smooth running of the branch. There was plenty of variety in her work and she estimated during that period that 60 per cent of her time was spent typing and 40 per cent doing clerical work.

This balance continued for almost eight years but in April 1992 a new manager was appointed. The Plaintiff was the only typist employed at the branch and from the first day of his appointment the new manager made it clear that he expected her to type considerably more than she had done previously as he had an energetic attitude towards marketing. From that time onwards the Plaintiff was typing for most of her working day with little possibility of the variation in her tasks that she had hitherto enjoyed. Audio typing accounted for a large proportion of the Plaintiff's work. In addition, there was also a great deal of copy-typing.

The Plaintiff used an Olivetti ET2250MD typewriter that had an electronic display. This had been installed in February 1992 two months before the arrival of the new manager. The Plaintiff's hours were from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm with a one hour break for lunch. There were no other official breaks. During the four months following the new manager's arrival the Plaintiff started to arrive at work one hour early to try and clear the backlog of work. She was not paid for this overtime. The Plaintiff frequently asked for some help, which was not provided.

In June 1992 the situation worsened due to staff sickness and the onset of holidays causing staff shortages. She found it increasingly hard to keep up with the typing which she was expected to produce. It became necessary to keep typing through the lunch break. She complained orally to the operations manager but was told that all staff were under pressure and that she would have to cope with the situation.

In early August 1992 the Plaintiff returned to work following an operation on her nose. She found that the backlog of typing had built up considerably during her absence. During the next three weeks she rarely took a lunch hour. In addition to this the manager produced a lot of extra typing for her as he said that he wanted as much as possible completed before she went on holiday at the end of August.

One evening just before her holiday the Plaintiff arrived home from work and found that she started to drop objects. She realised that her right wrist was very weak and her first thought was that she had sprained it. She decided to rest it as much as possible during the period of her two week's holiday which she spent at home. When the plaintiff returned to work in September she was aware of an intensification of the pain in her right wrist after she had been typing for a short time. She bought a wrist support and made an appointment with her GP on 29th September 1992. The GP informed her that she was suffering from tenosynovitis which was caused by excessive keyboard work. During the next week the Plaintiff continued to work but by now the pain had spread to her hand and wrist, both wrists were becoming swollen and she was also experiencing pins and needles in the hands, wrists and fingers. The plaintiff consulted her GP again on 6th October 1992. The GP gave her a sick note and referred her to an orthopaedic surgeon, whom she saw on 13th October 1992 and who diagnosed de Quervain tenosynovitis and recommended complete rest and splints for her wrists and hands.

The orthopaedic surgeon agreed to the Plaintiff returning to work on 14th December, providing she did no keyboard work, performed only light duties and continued to wear the splints he had recommended. He sent a certificate to this effect. Notwithstanding this and having been absent from work for two months due to her upper limb problem, on her first day back the Plaintiff was asked to type a letter, which she refused to do. The Plaintiff worked in reception for the next three months, but during this period the condition of her hands worsened.

On 4th June 1993 the Plaintiff had her annual appraisal interview with her manager, who told her that he was not happy that she had to have time off during working hours for physiotherapy treatment. The Plaintiff reminded her manager that she had received medical advice not to carry out certain jobs as they would aggravate her condition. But he told her that if she wanted to keep her job she should ignore this medical advice and suggested that she should start undertaking cashier duties. At the conclusion of the appraisal interview on 4th June the manager advised the Plaintiff that if she refused to carry out any duties that he told her to do then the personnel department would be unlikely to continue her employment.

In October 1993 the Plaintiff was transferred to another branch at Chatham. There she was given a new job as assistant to the financial planning manager. The Plaintiff found herself in a lot of pain and unable to cope with the demands of the tasks. The Plaintiff was finally retired on the grounds of ill-health on 31st October 1995 at the age of 42.

The Medical Expert called on behalf of the Plaintiff considered the Plaintiff had De Quervain's Tenosynovitis that was caused by her work, while the Medical Expert called on behalf of the Defendant suggested she was either lying or grossly exaggerating her symptoms. HH Judge Simpson found that it was "obvious" that the Plaintiff's condition was caused by an unreasonable typing workload and went on to find that the Defendant was negligent in that they failed to assess her working posture, gave no training, failed to warn her of the risks and failed to ensure that she took regular breaks and in subsequently not giving her duties that were appropriate to her condition.

HH Judge Simpson awarded the Plaintiff damages totalling £172,630.04. The Defendant subsequently sought to appeal the level of damages, which resulted in the Plaintiff accepting an undisclosed sum.

V1.01

Last updated: 16/10/2009