WRULD DB-Defendant: Baker McKenzie

Case	Date	Court	Claimant	Task	Injury	Judgment for
Smith - v - Baker McKenzie	11 Apr 1994	Mayor's & City of London County	Smith	DSE use: legal secretarial	Tenosynovitis	Plaintiff

This case summary is published with the kind permission of Lawtel (www.lawtel.com). Lawtel subscribers can access the full report at www.lawtel.com or for a free trial of the service click here.

The claimant, a 28-year-old woman, received £35,313 for the repetitive strain injury sustained during the course of her employment as a legal secretary between 1988 and 1990. The claimant suffered from pain and stiffness in her left hand and was unable to continue with typing work as a result of her condition. The medical experts held different opinions as to whether the claimant's left hand symptoms should be properly diagnosed as tenosynovitis.

Claimant: Female: 24 years old at date of accident; 28 years old at date of settlement.

Employers' Liability: Between 13 October 1988 and 5 October 1990, the claimant was employed by the defendant as a legal secretary. The claimant spent 85 per cent of her time audio typing and worked for long periods under pressure without regular breaks.

The claimant sustained injury and brought an action against the defendant alleging that it was negligent in its health and safety duties and/or in breach of its statutory duty in failing to operate a safe system of working.

Liability admitted. However, causation was at issue as there was conflicting medical evidence as to whether the claimant's symptoms and disorder could be properly diagnosed as tenosynovitis.

The medical expert for the claimant, a specialist rheumatologist, attributed the claimant's pain symptoms to a low grade tenosynovitis as he noted swelling around the tendons. He was particularly concerned that adhesions had formed between May and September 1990, and he considered that these adhesions were responsible for the claimant's continued discomfort.

In contrast, the medical expert for the defendant, a hand surgeon, would not diagnose tenosynovitis. In his view, convincing physical symptoms had to be present in order to diagnose tenosynovitis namely, symptoms in the area where tendons pass through, crepidus after inflammation has settled down, pain and tenderness and limitation of movement. As he did not consider these physical indications to be present in the claimant's case, he attributed the claimant's pain symptoms to a ganglion which appeared on her left hand.

Both medical experts agreed that inflammation or injury would lead to adhesions.

At trial, the judge accepted the evidence of the specialist rheumatologist and held that there could be a lower grade tenosynovitis. The judge therefore held that the claimant had made out her case of causation in respect of her left hand.

Injuries: The claimant suffered from repetitive strain injury in her left hand during her employment.

Effects: The claimant began to experience symptoms of pain and stiffness in her left hand in May 1990, which included numbness across her knuckles and pain in the middle and ring fingers of her left hand.

During one particularly heavy typing period between 16 and 18 May 1990, the claimant's left hand became stiff, painful and difficult to move. A few days later, a lump appeared on her left hand which was diagnosed as a ganglion, a cyst containing fluid. By the following week, the ganglion had gone but the pain became progressively worse. Her GP advised her that the ganglion had burst but that she should take two weeks off work which she did. On her return, typing became painful.

The claimant had to be careful in tasks affecting her hand, such as carrying heavy objects and or washing up and her left hand grip was reduced. She found driving was painful until the end of 1990.

Physiotherapy did not assist the claimant. By September 1990, there was no substantial improvement and it took very little to reproduce the symptoms. The claimant complained of a creaking noise, consistent with the development of adhesions which restricted the free movement of the tendons.

Prognosis: The claimant was unable to return to any form of employment which involved typing work and took alternative employment as a legal executive.

Court Award: £35,313 total damages.

Breakdown of General Damages: Pain, suffering and loss of amenity: £7,250
Future loss of earnings (on a four year basis): £9,015; Future caring difficulties: £1,000.

Breakdown of Special Damages: Past loss of earnings (to date of trial): £15,157; Interest: £2,891.50.

V1.01

Last updated: 16/10/2009