WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales

References to and/or interpretations of HSE Guidance Documents - Spencer - v - Boots the Chemist Ltd

Manual handling: Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 L23 Guidance on Regulations: Version-undefined
	Spencer - v - Boots the Chemist Ltd | Find Other Cases

In the Judgment at first instance on the 12th March 2002, when considering the question of whether the Defendant had discharged their duty at common law, HH Judge Barratt quoted extensively from the report of Mr Ridd, the jointly instructed Ergonomics Expert. At paragraph 33, HH Judge Barratt says:

As to possible work rates and the intensity of repetition, which is of course the foundation of the complaint in this case, he concludes that the highest rate is to have been in the region on 2 placements per minute into the return tray. He concludes:

'The Manual Handling regulations suggest a guideline figure of 5kg for 2 handed activities ..... A one handed lift can be reasonably be suggested to be 2.5kg: if reduced by 30% (for frequencies of up to 2 a minute) - for repetition - the guideline figure would be 1.75Kg: the 600g stock bottles represent only about one third of this weight."

At paragraph 48, HH Judge Barratt says:

I also conclude that the weight handled was modest and well within the Manual Handling Guidelines.

V1.01

Work Related Upper Limb Disorders: A Guide to Prevention HSG60 1990
	Spencer - v - Boots the Chemist Ltd | Find Other Cases

In the Judgment at first instance on the 12th March 2002, at paragraphs 45 to 47, HH Judge Barratt says:

In the Executive's Guidance on the Prevention of Upper Limb Disorders and in their Guidance on Risk Evaluation, the initial assessment procedure requires an employer to identify whether "a job _ ... involves a lot of frequent, forceful or awkward reaching. In my judgment there is no evidence of reaching in this case. It was at most lifting. The extent of any reaching was at worst de minimis.

I therefore conclude on the evidence that the raising of the claimant's left arm was not outside the normal range of movement. It was neither awkward, uncomfortable or overstretching.

I also conclude that there was no prolonged static loading of the arm in an activity which is associated with the onset of upper limb disorders and which would render them hazardous under prolonged repetition without sufficient rests or recovery time. (paragraph 19 of the HSE publication - a guide to prevention of ULDS).

V1.01

Last updated: 14/05/2013