WRULD DB-Defendant: T H Motson & Co Ltd

Case	Date	Court	Claimant	Task	Injury	Judgment for
Finn -v-T H Motson & Co Ltd	18 Mar 2010	Sheffield County	Finn	Factory butchering	Carpal Tunnel Syndrome	Claimant

Mr Finn started work in the meat industry as a trainee cutter in 1986. In 1998 he began working for the Defendant, a small wholesale business supplying meat to independent butchers and restaurants. The Claimant was required to work primarily as a boner, removing bones mainly from beef but he also dealt with smaller meat including pork, chicken and lamb from time to time. He worked from 6 am to 2 pm and would take 5 - 6 breaks, until 1.30 when he would clean his equipment. The boning work required the use of a 6" knife or 17" hand saw in his right hand and the use of his left hand to remove the bones. The work was heavy manual labour and required repeated forceful gripping of his left hand as he extracted the bones and repeated highly repetitive movements of his dominant right hand to make the cuts in the meat. The Claimant alleged that due to the breach of duty and negligence of his employer, he contracted bilateral Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) as a direct result of his employment.

The Defendant contended that the Claimant's duties were varied and included deliveries, fork lift truck driving, operating other machinery, placing meat in trays, sharpening knives and general administrative and housekeeping duties and that Mr Finn's CTS was not caused by his employment and/or there was no significant contribution to the cause by reason of his employment. The Defendant denied that they were negligent and in breach of any statutory duty. It was denied that any breach of regulation was causative of any injury since any assessment, if performed would not have identified any risk of injury, that the claimant carried out the workload for 6 years without complaint and that the Defendant operated a safe system of work.

The Claimant's symptoms including numbness and pins and needles came on gradually in 2004. He went to see his GP in October as the symptoms were getting worse causing him sleep loss and was diagnosed with CTS in November 2004. He finally underwent surgery on his left wrist in July 2005, then CTS decompression surgery on his right wrist in October 2005. The surgery seemed to be successful. The symptoms in the right hand resolved, but he continued to get some symptoms in the middle finger of his left hand that resulted in further surgery in 2007. Mr Finn claimed damages in excess of £15,000.

The Medical Experts agreed that the diagnosis was bilateral CTS and that an ongoing clinical situation was most unusual but disagreed about the relationship between work and CTS and also about the pathology of CTS in workers and non workers. Mr Recorder Barnett found that in this case there was a combination of different causes of WRULD including negligent causes, which were not negligible. The Claimant had an underlying constitutional weakness or display of symptoms and that this was aggravated or stimulated by his workplace activity. However, Mr Recorder Barnett also found that the period of continuation at work did not affect the underlying pathology. The Claimant appeared to make a full recovery, but suffered a recurrence in 2007 that required further surgery. Mr Recorder Barnett found that there was no causal connection between the events of 2004 and this later complication, but that there was a period between June 2004 and June 2005 when the Claimant's symptoms were allowed to continue.

With respect to foreseeability, Mr Recorder Barnett found that the Claimant's work gave rise to a real risk of WRULD developing, bearing in mind the Defendant's system of work. There was an obligation under regulation 10 and at common law to ensure that the employee has been provided with information about health and safety and the measures to take. There was a failure to provide the Claimant with this information that contributed to the symptoms that he experienced over this period of time. That the Claimant did complain in June 2005 of matters consistent with work related issues, as he felt numbness and pins and needles whilst at work and 'less trouble' at weekends. Had proper information been given to the Claimant, he would have complained about his symptoms in June 2004. Had he complained in June 2004, the probable consequence would have been that the Defendant would have taken steps at that time, more than they took in November 2004. Those steps would have further reduced the Claimant's exposure but that he would not have been removed completely.

Mr Recorder Barnett found that the Claimant would have had to subject himself to surgery in any event but that there was a period of aggravation in his condition. The Claimant was awarded general damages of £2,750 plus £160 interest.

V1.01

Last updated: 16/04/2010