WRULD Claims heard in Courts in England, Scotland and Wales

Hearing(s) - Conaty - v - Barclays Bank plc

Date	Court	Claimant(s)	Task	Injury	Judgment for
6 Apr 2000	Central London County	Conaty	DSE use: numeric data entry	De Quervain's Syndrome	Claimant

This case summary is published with the kind permission of Lawtel (www.lawtel.com). Lawtel subscribers can access the full report at www.lawtel.com or for a free trial of the service click here.

The claimant, a 28-year-old woman, received £243,792 for the repetitive strain injury, De Quervain's tenovaginitis, she sustained whilst working for the defendant bank as a cashier. The claimant's work required her to spend approximately 75 per cent of her working day using a keyboard, adopting a posture whereby she held her right wrist in ulnar deviation with her right thumb extended out to the side. She was left with continued and extensive pain and was unable to continue working. Medical experts were of the opinion that the claimant's condition was unlikely to improve without further surgery which was not a recommended course of action.

Claimant: Female, 23 years old at the onset of symptoms; 28 years old at date of award.

Employers' Liability: In 1987 the claimant, then aged 16, was employed by the defendant as a junior clerk. From 1987 onwards the claimant's employment involved working on an REM cheque processing machine which involved intensive keyboard use.

In 1991 the claimant's workload increased and fewer breaks from keyboard inputting were needed in order to hand write information as the office had become more computerised. Between 1992 and 1994 the claimant was required to undertake additional keyboard work which was expected to be fitted into her existing daily routine. In May 1994 the claimant's request to be transferred to another branch was approved and was due to take effect in November 1994. Prior to her transfer however, the claimant was informed that she had to close 200-250 dormant accounts by inputting account details onto the computer, which she undertook to do.

On 11 November 1994 the claimant awoke with severe cramp-like pain in her right wrist. She attempted to undertake her work but the pain increased and so she began to use her left hand on the keyboard. The claimant reported these problems to her supervisor and was told to slow down. During the evening the claimant's pain increased, from which she subsequently fainted. She was taken to hospital in the early hours of 12 November 1994 where a diagnosis of De Quervain's tenovaginitis was made and a sling and wrist support provided.

On 14 November 1994 the claimant returned to work wearing the support and sling and reported her condition. She continued to work using her left hand and her right index finger.

On 21 November 1994 the claimant was transferred to another department undertaking similar but less pressurised work. The claimant was still wearing a wrist support and was given a Health and Safety booklet to read. She was advised not to do any computer work if her hand hurt. She attempted to resume some keyboard work, but found that this increased her pain.

In December 1994 the claimant stopped keyboard work completely, and in January 1995 she was transferred to work which involved very limited keyboard work. At the same time she began a course of physiotherapy and acupuncture. Her condition deteriorated however, she took sick leave and requested a transfer to a branch near her parent's home as she could not cope with living on her own due to the pain. This application for transfer was refused.

On 8 July 1996, after being unable to work since January 1995, the claimant's employment with the defendant was terminated due to incapacity.

The claimant issued proceedings on 8 September 1997 alleging that the defendant had been negligent in, inter alia, failing: (i) to perform a sufficient analysis of her workstation and provide suitable seating and foot-rests; (ii) to plan her daily activities so that there were periodic changes in activity; (iii) to provide her with adequate health and safety information and instruction as to the safe method of performing her work; and (iv) failing to carry out an assessment of the risk of work-related upper limb disorder from the claimant's inputting tasks and monitor her medical condition.

In court the claimant demonstrated how the layout of her workstation, with keyboard and screen situated to her right, resulted in her adopting a posture whereby she held her right wrist in ulnar deviation (twisted to the right away from her thumb) with her right thumb extended out to the side. The height of the desk was such that the claimant worked with her right elbow below desk level, causing her wrist to flex. Over the course of her employment the claimant spent approximately 75 per cent of her time working on a keyboard.

The central issue in the case was whether De Quervain's condition could be caused in this way. The defendant's medical expert contended that, in the absence of an overuse of the thumb involving force, there could be no causative link to De Quervain's condition. He relied on recent literature which gave no illustrative example of De Quervain's condition being caused without an overuse of the thumb involving force.

The claimant contended that, whilst normally De Quervain's is caused by forceful work, the working posture of her right hand was such as to place an unacceptable strain on her wrist tendons which were held taut for extensive periods at a time.

Medical experts agreed that it would be unusual for a woman of the claimant's age (23 years old at the onset of her symptoms) to suffer from such a condition, although it was accepted that in certain age groups the condition could be brought on by spontaneous degeneration. It was also accepted that the cause of the condition in many cases was multifactorial and there were likely to be causes which were not yet known to medical science.

The judge accepted that the claimant had carried out batches of keyboard work and the onset of the pain followed, as stated by the claimant, a particularly intensive period of keyboard work. The judge was satisfied that the inputting work was a possible cause of the condition and in the absence of any other identifiable cause for the onset of the condition, a causative link had been established on the balance of probabilities. It was more probable than not that the claimant's work had caused her to suffer from the condition.

The defendant originally disputed all aspects of the claimant's allegations, however after a three-day trial it conceded that it had been in breach of its statutory duties contrary to the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 SI 1992/2792 in failing to undertake a workstation risk assessment and failing to plan the claimant's activities to introduce breaks and changes in activities.

V1.01

Last updated: 16/10/2009