WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales

References to and/or interpretations of HSE Guidance Documents - Finn -v-T H Motson & Co Ltd

Upper Limb Disorders in the workplace HSG60(rev) 2002
	Finn -v-T H Motson & Co Ltd | Find Other Cases

In his Judgment on the 18th March 2010, when referring to the evidence of the Ergonomics Expert instructed by the Claimant, Mr Recorder Barnett says:

In his report, he dealt with the HSE guide to prevention of WRULD [1990] and concluded that had the Defendants considered the various issues set out ....., they should have identified that the work presented a foreseeable risk for some employees developing some form of upper limb problems.

In cross examination, [the Ergonomics Expert instructed by the Claimant] agreed that if the claimant was at risk of suffering a WRULD it would be expected to have arisen during his previous employment and that it would also have been expected to manifest itself during periods of longer exposure to the boning activity. He also conceded that on the basis of the published literature, it was difficult to understand the damage to the non dominant hand. A detailed examination of the criteria .... did not demonstrate clear relevance to the claimants work processes.

V1.01

Work Related Upper Limb Disorders: A Guide to Prevention HSG60 1990
	Finn -v-T H Motson & Co Ltd | Find Other Cases

In his Judgment on the 18th March 2010, Mr Recorder Barnett says:

In cross examination, [the Ergonomics Expert instructed by the Defendant] confirmed that there is a permanent obligation to undertake a risk assessment and that the HSE guidance as updated in 2002 is reasonable general advice. [The Ergonomics Expert instructed by the Defendant] dealt with the risk filter set out in Appendix 2 in detail and concluded in an impressive manner, how it was likely that upon a detailed consideration it would be impossible to find any job which would not require a risk assessment using this unhelpful tool.

V1.01

Last updated: 14/05/2013