WRULD Claims heard in Courts in England, Scotland and Wales

Hearing(s) - Goldstraw (Sandra) - v - Lucas Automotive Ltd

Date	Court	Claimant(s)	Task	Injury	Judgment for
20 Sep 2000	Stoke County	Goldstraw	Handling / Assembling vehicle wiring looms	Lateral Epicondylitis	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 52-year-old woman, was awarded £35,194.11 for the repetitive strain injury sustained during the course of her employment between 1984 and 1997. The claimant suffered from left wrist pain and epicondylitis in her right elbow and was unable to continue working.

Claimant: Female: Between 45 and 49 years old at date of accident; 52 years old at date of award.

Employers' Liability: Between 1984 and 1997, the claimant was employed by the defendant and carried out repetitive manual work wiring harnesses used in the manufacture of motor vehicles. The work consisted of throwing electrical leads up over a frame, fitting the ends of the electrical wires into an electrical connector block, known as "pre-blocking", and finally closing the blocks to secure the wires in place. The claimant worked on approximately 50 harnesses a day, closing one block per harness. From 1992, the defendant introduced a carousel system and the claimant's workload increased to approximately 80 harnesses a day with the requirement to close two blocks per harness.

The claimant sustained injury and brought an action against the defendant alleging that it was negligent in its health and safety duties and/or in breach of its statutory duty in failing to operate a safe system of working.

Liability disputed. The defendant accepted that the work carried with it a risk of upper limb disorder, however, it relied on the fact that it had produced a health and safety leaflet which set out the procedure for dealing with repetitive strain injuries.

At trial, the judge held that the defendant was in breach of its duty of care to the claimant both prior to and after her complaints of right elbow symptoms in the following respects:

Firstly, prior to the claimant's complaints of right elbow symptoms in January 1994, the defendant was in breach of duty as: (i) there was no system of job rotation in place; (ii) no risk assessment had been carried out until February 1997; and (iii) the claimant had not received any specific warning or education relevant to the risks of an upper limb disorder. Although, the defendant had produced a health and safety leaflet, it had not been given to the claimant or other key employees.

Secondly, after the claimant complained of tennis elbow symptoms in January 1994, the defendant was in breach of duty as: (i) the claimant had been sent back to her work to carry on with the same work; and (ii) no arrangements had been made to monitor the claimant's progress or observe her at her place of work.

Thirdly, the defendant's breaches of duty caused and contributed to the claimant's condition because: (i) the claimant's condition was occupational in origin; and (ii) the claimant was allowed to continue with work, which was the original cause of her right tennis elbow.

Finally, the judge considered that the claimant had largely recovered from her tennis elbow symptoms by October 1997 and found that her ongoing complaints of tennis elbow were not the consequence of the original injury and therefore could not be compensated by the defendant.

Injuries: The claimant suffered from epicondylitis in her right elbow and a painful left wrist during the course of her employment.

Effects: The claimant experienced pain and numbness in her left wrist throughout 1993. On 10 May 1993, the claimant complained to the works surgery of a painful left wrist and visited her GP that day who diagnosed an inflamed tendon and the claimant took a few days off work. The claimant's left wrist problems continued throughout June and August 1993 and the works nurse provided a tubigrip support to wear. On 4 November 1993, the claimant visited the works nurse complaining of pain and swelling in her knuckle and middle finger of her left hand. On 26 November 1993, the claimant's GP referred her to a rheumatologist for "tenosynovitis" in the left hand.

The claimant first complained of right tennis elbow symptoms on 24 January 1994 when she visited the works surgery complaining that she had experienced a dull ache in her right elbow for the past week and that her right elbow was tender to the touch. The claimant took paracetamol and was given lasonil and a tubigrip bandage by the works nurse who advised her to see her GP. On 4 February 1994, the claimant saw her GP who diagnosed tennis elbow and prescribed feldene gel.

On 7 February 1994, the claimant saw the works nurse, reported the tennis elbow diagnosis and expressed her view that the symptoms were caused by closing the blocks. After leaving the works surgery, the claimant returned to her work and the defendant arranged for another employee to close the blocks for her. However, the claimant was subsequently transferred to another work station where the pace was slower, however, she was given no help in closing the blocks. Her condition subsequently deteriorated.

By 7 June 1994, when the claimant visited the works nurse again with a painful right elbow, the claimant found it increasingly difficult to continue at work. Physiotherapy and injection therapy did not assist the claimant. In March 1995, the claimant's right arm was put in plaster and she was unable to work. In June 1995, the claimant tried to return to work but found that she was unable to continue and she was sent home as there was no suitable work for her to do. Thereafter, the claimant did not return to work.

In 1997, the claimant's employment with the defendants was terminated and she was retired on grounds of ill-health.

Prognosis: The claimant's symptoms were ongoing and she would continue to suffer from significant disability in her right upper arm. The claimant's left hand and wrist symptoms had improved by the date of trial.

Court Award: £35,194.11 total damages.

V1.01

Last updated: 16/10/2009