WRULD DB : Pickford - v - Imperial Chemical Industries plc (Ann Margaret Pickford)

Pickford - v - Imperial Chemical Industries plc

For Claimant
Claimant	Ann Margaret Pickford
Job title	Secretary
Job description	DSE use: word processing and secretarial duties
Injury	Cramp of the hand due to repetitive movements
Defendant	Imperial Chemical Industries plc
Court	Court of Appeal
Case No.	QBENF 95/0120/C
Date	18 Jul 96
Judge(s)	Lord Justice Stuart-Smith Lord Justice Swinton Thomas Lord Justice Waite
All Claimants	Ann Margaret Pickford
Solicitor	William Hood & Co
Counsel	Mr M Redfern QC; Mr Guy Vickers
Non-Medical expert(s)	Dr Dennis Thompson, Ergonomics
Medical expert(s)	Prof John K Stanley, Hand Surgery Dr Lucire, Psychiatry
For Defendant
Solicitor	Halliwell Landau
Counsel	Mr Benet A Hytner QC; Mr P Stewart
Non-Medical expert(s)	Mr Brian G Pearce, Ergonomics
Medical expert(s)	Mr Hay, Psychiatry Dr Emlyn Williams, Rheumatology
Outcome
Judgment for:	Plaintiff
Injury found:	Yes
Work related:	Yes
Breach of Statutory Duty:	No finding
Defendant negligent:	Yes
Damages
General:
Special:
Other:
TOTAL:
Observations
	Appealed
References
	(1997) ICR 566 : (1997) 8 Med LR 270 : Times, August 31, 1996
LAWTEL Case report
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. Appeal against dismissal of plaintiff's claim for injury which the plaintiff contended she had contracted in the course of her employment as a secretary with the defendants' pharmaceutical section at Macclesfield. The plaintiff was suffering from PDA4, a complaint suffered by, amongst others, musicians and typists. The complaint was recognised in 1948 by the Department of Health and Social Security and is also known as repetitive strain injury. The injury was caused by excessive typing and had developed in 1988, coming to a head in 1989. HELD (Swinton Thomas LJ dissenting as he did not believe it was open to the court to reverse the various findings of fact made by the judge who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses): (1) The plaintiff's case was a straightforward one. The complaint was indisputably a rare one but it was sufficiently significant to justify statutory classification as a prescribed disease. It was significant enough for the defendants to draw attention to it in the memorandum prepared by the Chemicals and Polymer Group and for them to include in their training programme for their general typing staff advice to take rest pauses from typing work. (2) No equivalent advice was given to the plaintiff who (as was undisputed) did on occasions type without a break, sometimes for long periods. That gave rise to an inference that the plaintiff was one of the rare victims who develop PDA4 through typing. (3) It was easy to see how the duty to give a similar warning to that given to the Chemicals and Polymer Group, came to be overlooked. But the duty was there all the same, and the defendants were in breach of it. (4) The judge had misdirected himself in saying that the onus was upon the plaintiff to establish that the cramp in her hands had an organic cause, and his finding that her condition was psychogenic could not be supported. The plaintiff was entitled to damages. Appeal allowed.