WRULD Claims heard in Courts in England, Scotland and Wales

Hearing(s) - Trotman - v - London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Date	Court	Claimant(s)	Task	Injury	Judgment for
24 Sep 2002	Central London County	Trotman	DSE use: data input & word processing	Tenosynovitis, Cervical Nerve Root Irritation	Claimant

Miss Trotman claimed damages in excess of £400,000 for personal injury alleged to have been sustained during the course of her employment as a computer operator with her former employer the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Miss Trotman was employed as a computer specialist and the claim arose out of what were alleged to have been ergonomically unsuitable working conditions, which were alleged to have caused her severe extensor tenosynovitis in her right wrist, and also a cervical nerve root irritation on the right side of her neck. The defendants denied both the nature and the extent of the alleged injuries and disabilities and further denied that they were caused in any event by any deficiencies in her working conditions.

HH Judge Dean found that: from April/May until 30th November 1998 Miss Trotman was required to and did work more or less continuously in a small room, which was not designed or intended for office use. Although referred to as a meeting room, a more appropriate description would be a storage room. At the time that Miss Trotman was working there, it was in fact used among other thing for the storage of computers. The room had no outside windows but is said to have had a view onto a light well within the building. The ventilation was inadequate and not functioning correctly. The room was stuffy and hot due to the presence of computers, which were continuously running in the room.

Miss Trotman was required to perform her work at a circular table on which she had to place the computers. The circular table made it difficult to configure the computers with Miss Trotman's working position. She was given a rigid chair, which did not have any provision for adjusting either its height or its back. Furthermore, the chair was positioned such that the VDU screen was too low at which to work comfortably and was sited at an angle to the operator. There was another more suitable rectangular table in that room but this was occupied by computer equipment. Computer equipment was also scattered and stored on the floor. The printer for the computer was stored on the floor.

Miss Trotman worked long hours because of the needs of the project. The project was behind schedule and under budgeted. She normally commenced work at about 8.00 or so in the morning and her normal working hours were sometime after 4 o'clock, but she frequently exceeded those times and at times worked to 6 o'clock. She was supposed to take a minimum of a 30 minute lunch break; occasionally she took less than that, from time to time she ate her lunch seated at the computer. Her principal daily activities involved use of the computer keyboard and the mouse for the inputting of data and the preparation of computer outputs. There was also a degree of typing.

Miss Trotman was at no time instructed or advised by the responsible officers of the defendant to vary her working activities. She was not advised to take regular breaks from the routine of computer operations. The pressure on her to perform continuously and rapidly was severe.

The case was originally pleaded upon alleged breaches of both statutory and common law duties. By the end of the hearing, Counsel for the Claimant did not pursue the case based on common law duties and was content to rely upon statutory provisions. In particular, regulations 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Health & Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 were relied upon. The defendants admitted they were in breach of those regulations, with the exception of regulation 4. In addition, reliance was placed upon the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations of 1992 and 1998, particularly regulations 8 and 9 of the 1992 Regulations, which emphasize in a more general sense the matters discussed in the DSE Regulations.

HH Judge Dean found that there was a clear breach of regulation 4 as well as the other admitted breaches: no break pattern was established, the work did not have its natural breaks; there was the stress and pressure to work continuously; there was unsympathetic attitude taken by Mr Allen. HH Judge Dean went on to consider the history of the Claimant's symptoms and to review the extensive medical evidence.

On 27th October 1998 when Miss Trotman was working at her computer, she experienced pain in her right wrist and she noticed that a swelling had developed on the back of her right hand. She reported this to the occupational health department. The next day, Miss Trotman went to see her GP, who noted the complaint of pain and swelling on the back of the right wrist. The GP prescribed anti-inflammatory medication and certified that Miss Trotman was unfit for work, at that stage for a period of two weeks. In fact following that initial visit to her GP, Miss Trotman did not return to any form of regular active work until April 1999. She did, however, visit the defendants' premises from time to time and was seen by the occupational health staff over the period.

On 25th February 1999, her GP certified that she was fit to return to work. Miss Trotman did not in fact return to work until 19th April 1999. In her evidence she said her right wrist was becoming painful after using the keyboard for only a matter of about 30 minutes. Miss Trotman then worked on an intermittent basis between 19th April 1999 and June 1999. During this period she took her accumulated annual leave and was also given additional compassionate leave following a family bereavement. The Defendant made attempts to find alternative work for her but were not successful in doing so. She said that even simple tasks such as putting papers into envelopes caused her pain. Miss Trotman did not work effectively at all after June 1999.

On 8th June 1999, her GP recorded that her wrist had become more painful on her return to work and issued a further sick note citing stress as the reason, thereby certifying she was unfit to work for a further period of three weeks. The GP also recommended that Miss Trotman should undertake counselling.

In August 1999, Miss Trotman was assessed by the DHSS as having a 16 per cent disablement by reason of loss of power and function in the right wrist. This assessment was reviewed from time to time and later it was confirmed as a lifelong disablement of the order of 16 per cent. In April 2001, the Southwark Local Authority occupational health team interviewed Miss Trotman with a view to seeing whether she was entitled to have modifications made to her house in the light of her complaints of disability. She complained, according to the reports, of tenosynovitis in both right and left wrist with chronic pain in her back, hips, wrists, fingers, inflammation of the joints, fatigue when walking and she said she suffered in her hips when bending. On the basis of those complaints modifications were made at the public expense to Miss Trotman's house to enable her to cope. In evidence she denied that she had ever made claims so extensive as indicated in those reports.

Having reviewed the extensive medical evidence and considered the conflicting views of the Medical Experts, HH Judge Dean found that the evidence clearly established that Miss Trotman did suffer from tenosynovitis in October 1998 and was satisfied that this condition was substantially caused - certainly materially contributed to - by the working conditions, which Miss Trotman had to endure between April and November 1998. These risks materialised by reason of the inappropriate seating and position, the inappropriate configuration of the computer in relation to the unadjustable seat, the fact of the stress that she was subjected to, the pressures of work. However, HH Judge Dean was satisfied that any symptoms of tenosynovitis had gone by the time that Miss Trotman returned to work in April 1999.

HH Judge Dean then says:

I am not at all satisfied and the burden of proof is on Miss Trotman to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities, that there were any ongoing symptoms attributable to the initial tenosynovitis by at the very latest April 1999. I have little doubt that Miss Trotman does exaggerate her symptoms. She is an articulate and intelligent young woman as was apparent from the way she gave evidence. She was also as a witness, evasive, defensive, failing to meet problems inherent in the reports of other doctors. She told different stories about whether she was being supported by her partner to different people. She resiled from some of the more extreme reports of her condition in relation to walking, hips and the like, particularly in the report of the Southwark occupational team. I formed the quite clear impression that this lady was exaggerating matters beyond any credible belief. ........ Having said all that, I am still nonetheless satisfied that she did suffer organically induced symptoms until about April 1999. I think since then she has not used the arm and, in my judgment, she is in severe danger of becoming a professional and permanent invalid, not as a result of any organic condition, but of her failure to involve herself with the arm.

Later in the Judgment, HH Judge Dean says:

It is apparent that all the doctors who addressed their mind to the topic think a lot of Miss Trotman's problems are caused by her unwillingness to make use of the arm and that she is falling into a condition in which she seems to have satisfied herself that that is the best way of going about things, possibly with a view to getting compensation, I know not. It is not necessary for me to decide that, all I am saying is that I am not satisfied on the balance of probability that tortuously induced symptoms continued beyond April 1999.

The Claimant was awarded damages totalling £2,750 inclusive of interest. The general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party. However, in this case Miss Trotman had claimed in excess of £400,000 and had declined to accept an offer made by the Defendant a few weeks prior to the trial to settle the matter for about £40,000. HH Judge Dean ordered the Defendant to pay 40% of the Claimant's costs up to the date the Claimant could have accepted the Defendant's offer to settle the matter for about £40,000 and the Claimant to pay the Defendant's costs from that date. There is no indication of what the costs were, but given that the Claimant had to pay 60% of her own costs up to a few weeks before the trial and all of her own costs and those of the Defendant thereafter, which included the costs of the trial, it seems clear that the costs the Claimant was ordered to pay would have dwarfed the £2,750 damages she was awarded.

V1.01

Last updated: 16/10/2009