This case summary was published with 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.

Unsuccessful claim for injury consequent upon work related upper limb disorder, formerly known as repetitive strain injury, from use of a computer keyboard for long periods at work.

Claim by a sub-editor against his former employers in negligence for personal injury by repetitive strain injury arising from his use at work of computer keyboard. He alleged that the defendants had failed to train him to use the keyboard with more than two or three fingers, made him work too hard, failed to provide ergonomic work stations and adjustable chairs in working order, failed to withdraw him from keyboard work when he first reported the symptoms of upper limb disorder, failed to take account of knowledge that prolonged keyboard work was a cause of upper limb disorder. The plaintiff had been on sick leave from 1/5/89 until 31/12/90 when his employment was terminated.

HELD: In July 1987 the plaintiff fell down stairs and injured his shoulder. In February 1988 he fell asleep in his chair and woke up with a severe pain in his right arm. He was x-rayed in February 1989 and found to have degeneration of the cervical spine at C5/6 and C6/7. It was conjectured that the arm pain after the plaintiff fell asleep was consistent with cervical spondylosis.

HELD: Medical evidence has swung firmly towards work related upper limb disorder being psychosomatic in origin. It was an impossible contention that the defendants should have realised in December 1988 or January 1989 that the plaintiff was in the early stages of a psychosomatic disorder. The defendants took all reasonable care in introducing their staff to the use of computers to set up a complaints system in addition to very careful and humane conditions of employment negotiated with the National Union of Journalists to ensure that any ill- effects or perceived risk was exposed and reported at the earliest opportunity. The introduction of new technology was done with care and good sense. There was no breach of duty by the defendants between December 1988 and April 1989. There were at the time fundamentally differing approaches to the treatment of work related upper limb disorder - total rest being at one extreme. The defendants gave the plaintiff easier work finally giving him sick leave for a considerable period of time.

Case dismissed. Judgment for the defendants.