WRULD DB-Defendant: Bennetts UK Ltd

Case	Date	Court	Claimant	Task	Injury	Judgment for
Goodwin (now Slevin) - v - Bennetts UK Ltd	11 Dec 2008	Court of Appeal	Goodwin (now Slevin)	DSE use: data entry / administrative tasks	Tenosynovitis	Appellant (Claimant)
	4 Jan 2008	Southampton County	Goodwin (now Slevin)	DSE use: data entry / administrative tasks	Tenosynovitis	Defendant

The Claimant, who is referred to as Mrs Slevin in the Judgments, was 28 years old when she developed bilateral wrist symptoms that were described by the Consultant Rheumatologist instructed by those acting on her behalf as "tenosynovitis of the flexor tendons of the index fingers and/or thumbs". While the Defendant was found to have been in breach of regulations 2, 6 & 7 of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations, this claim failed at first instance because the Claimant could not prove that the pleaded injuries were caused by her work that involved the use of a computer screen and keyboard and some telephone work. The Claimant's appeal succeeded only in respect of the recurrence of "pain" in and after January 2003, not in respect of all the injuries pleaded. The transcript of the Court of Appeal Judgment does not record the damages awarded, which were reported in The Daily Telegraph to have been £2,915.90.

The Claimant's pleaded case alleged that she performed an average of about 1,800 keystrokes per hour. She was entitled to a 45 minute lunch break and a further 15 minutes to be taken as a single unit or in two periods split between the morning and the afternoon. From May 2001 the Claimant worked in the Defendant's Portsmouth office, where she remained until she was made redundant in June 2003. In May 2002 the Defendant decided to introduce a bonus scheme for its renewal staff that was intended to reward staff with additional payments according to the number of renewals they completed. However, the scheme was on the basis that individual reward also depended in part upon the performance of the whole team of which the individual was a member. The scheme proved to be extremely popular, but the Defendant quickly discovered that it was too generous to sustain. Accordingly the Defendant revised the terms of the scheme with effect from 1 August 2002.

In late July or August of 2002 the Claimant was involved in a minor road traffic accident. She was a passenger in a car that stopped suddenly. She was thrown forward in her seat and put her hands out to protect herself, causing them to strike the dashboard. During the summer of 2002 the Claimant started to notice aching in both wrists, which became steadily worse. During August 2002 the Claimant told her line manager about the pain in her wrists. She also told him about the road traffic accident. Her line manager gained the impression (whether rightly or wrongly) that the two matters were related and suggested that the Claimant should consult her GP. The Claimant took her annual holiday in September 2002, during which the symptoms subsided. At the beginning of October the Claimant returned to work after her holiday. The pain in her wrists returned. On 11 October 2002 the Claimant consulted her GP about the pain in her wrists. On 23 October 2002 the Claimant consulted her GP again and was signed off work for two weeks, the certificate stating "Tenosynovitis".

The Claimant returned to work in early November, initially working on projects other than renewals, but quite soon the Claimant was once again dealing with renewals, but less than the number of renewals that she had been dealing with per day before 23 October. The wrist pain which the Claimant had previously suffered returned in January 2003 and grew worse. On 24 February 2003, the Defendant wrote to the Claimant's GP, seeking medical advice. Among other things, the GP advised that repetitive tasks should be minimised.

The Claimant's line manager admitted at trial that he had little knowledge of WRULDs, was not familiar with the HSE's published guidance and did not understand the term 'Tenosynovitis', for which the Claimant had been signed off work for two weeks by her GP in October 2002.

In the Judgment at first instance on 4th January 2008, HH Judge Dixon held that the Defendant had been in breach of regulations 2, 6 and 7 of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations, but that those breaches had not been causative of injury to the Claimant. The judge held that the Defendant had not been in breach of regulation 4, nor had the Defendant been negligent. In relation to the medical issues, HH Judge Dixon rejected the diagnosis of Tenosynovitis and held that the Claimant's symptoms were not caused by her work, although they were "exposed" by it. He assessed general damages at £4,000; loss of earning capacity at £8,000 and noted that special damages were agreed between the parties at £31.90. The Claimant appealed the decision of HH Judge Dixon on five grounds.

In the Judgment of the Court of Appeal on the 11th December 2008, Lord Justice Jackson held that HH Judge Dixon had been entitled to reject the diagnosis of Tenosynovitis, but then says, at paragraphs 31 & 32:

Although the diagnosis of tenosynovitis has been rejected, the fact remains that during the claimant's employment and for a period afterwards the claimant suffered a considerable amount of pain and aching in her wrists. Those symptoms were genuine. The judge found the claimant to be an honest witness, even though mistaken in her recollection about a number of matters of detail. The question arises therefore as to why the claimant suffered these symptoms.

After reviewing the medical evidence, at paragraphs 33 & 34, Lord Justice Jackson says:

The judge ought to have held, on the balance of probabilities, that the pain which the claimant suffered in her wrists was aggravated by her keyboard work. I therefore conclude that to this extent the claimant succeeds on the fourth ground of appeal. Between the summer of 2002 and June 2003 the claimant's keyboard work aggravated the pain which the claimant suffered in her wrists. It is clear to me on the evidence that the claimant's keyboard work made a material contribution to that pain.

Their Lordships went on to find the Defendant negligent in causing or allowing the Claimant to process renewals quite soon after her return to work and in failing to the heed the advice sought from the Claimant's GP. Their Lordships also found the Defendant's breaches of regulations 6 and 7 caused the recurrence of the Claimant's symptoms in early 2003, on the basis that if the Defendant had provided proper information and training in and after November 2002, the Claimant's keyboard use would have been substantially less and that the recurrence of the Claimant's symptoms in January 2003 would not have occurred.

Their Lordships also found the Defendant in breach of regulation 4 of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations, but that the breach of regulation 4 had no causative effect, given that if the Defendant had set about devising a plan as required by regulation 4, such a plan would not have required any material change to the Claimant's existing routine.

Their Lordships held the Defendant in breach of regulation 2 of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations up until November 2002, when the Defendant undertook an analysis of the Claimant's workstation. However, the breach of regulation 2 had no causative effect, given that if any analysis had been undertaken, it would have led to the conclusion that the Claimant's workstation was satisfactory.

While the finding by the Court of Appeal that the Defendant was in breach of regulation 4 of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations did not influence the outcome of this claim, it raises interesting questions about precisely what an employer needs to do to comply with regulation 4, if the daily work routine is already interrupted by breaks or changes of activity that adequately reduce the workload on the display screen equipment and no material change to the routine is required.

V2.01

Last updated: 16/10/2009