WRULD DB-Defendant: Churchill China (UK) Ltd

Case	Date	Court	Claimant	Task	Injury	Judgment for
Barlow - v - Churchill China (UK) Ltd	16 Dec 2004	Stoke County	Barlow	Handling crockery	Pain Syndrome	Claimant

Mrs. Barlow began work with the Defendant as a carton packer in 1981. She was required to pack various items of pottery ware into cardboard boxes that she had previously assembled for that purpose and where appropriate, to attach bar-coded labels to either the items or the packaging. She worked from 8.00 am to 4.45 pm from Monday to Thursday inclusive and 8.00 am to 3.45 pm on Friday, with a twenty minute morning break and a forty-five minute break for lunch. Smokers could take additional "comfort" breaks but the claimant did not have that same benefit. She was paid upon a piecework basis. The work was of a wholly manual nature and it was not suggested that any system of mechanisation might reasonably have been introduced to make that task less onerous.

Having continued in the same employment until the summer of 2000, the claimant returned to normal working after the Potteries holiday fortnight and, by Thursday 27 July 2000, was experiencing severe pain in her right hand and wrist that appeared to be centred around the base of the right thumb. She was able to complete her shift however and reported her discomfort to one of her supervisors. By the time of her return to work the following morning, the claimant's hand was swollen and continued to be painful to the extent that she reported that fact to a supervisor, who then placed her upon lighter packing duties pending the arrival of personnel officers about an hour later. An appointment was then made for her to see her own GP at 9.45 am that morning.

The medical records revealed that the claimant was diagnosed at that stage as suffering from tenosynovitis of the extensors of the right thumb. She was prescribed ibuprofen gel and given a medical certificate for fourteen days. Such was the pain that she was experiencing however that the claimant attended at the Accident and Emergency Department of the North Staffordshire Hospital at about 6.00 pm on that same evening. At that juncture she gave the account that her wrist had been painful since Monday 24 July 2000, that the onset had been gradual and that there had been no history of injury or trauma. A futuro splint was supplied and appropriate advice given.

On 2 August 2000, at the behest of the defendant, the claimant was examined by Dr. Gardner a general practitioner, who found her to be suffering from acute inflammation of the tendons of the right wrist and the adductor longus tendon that was causing a mild medial epicondylitis. She was considered to be unfit for work but that her condition would improve with rest. In the event however the claimant's condition did not improve either significantly or at all and in due course she was assessed as being entitled to disability benefit at the rate of 8%. On 15 June 2001 she was re-examined by Dr. Gardner, who concluded that, since there had been little change in her symptoms, she should be offered early retirement upon the basis that there was no position at the defendant's factory that she could continue to undertake. Accordingly her employment was terminated on 3 August 2001.

The particular work the claimant implicated in her claim was packing Heritage ware. Each three-piece set of Heritage ware that the claimant was required to pack was comprised of a teacup, a saucer and a plate that was placed into a pyramidal box, twelve such inners being then packed into a larger outer cardboard carton. It was averred by the claimant that the packing of Heritage ware was the worst task that she had to perform, that it was always problematic and that she had come to dread it. She stated that Heritage ware was heavier than other items that she was called upon to pack and that despite habitually wearing wrist supports in the form of elasticised bandages, known also as "tubigrip", she found the work repetitive and gave rise to general aches and pains by the end of each day in her fingers, hands, wrists, arms, shoulders, back and legs. It was not disputed that the claimant and other packers wore such wrist supports in the course of their employment. It would not appear however that the defendant paid much regard to that fact save as an issue of cost saving.

After reviewing the extensive medical evidence, Mr Recorder Rafferty preferred the evidence of the medical expert instructed by the claimant and found the claimant had suffered a diffuse forearm pain syndrome and neurpathological pain. In the concluding paragraphs of his Judgment, Mr Recorder Rafferty says:

Taking a due account of all of the evidence in the case I conclude therefore that, upon a balance of probabilities, the injury suffered by the claimant was occasioned by her employment and further, that the risk of such a significant injury was a reasonably foreseeable event. The omissions by the defendant to recognise that such a risk existed or at the very least, to fully appreciate the extent to which it did so, to take such steps as were appropriate and reasonable either to provide the claimant with a safe system of working and to be constantly alert to the requirement to minimise the dangers of that risk, amount in my judgement to negligence founding such breaches as have been pleaded of the duties imposed by regulation 4(1) of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 and further and in any event, the duty of care at common law.

V1.01

Last updated: 16/10/2009