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.

Six claimants, four women and two men, (out of a total of nine claimants), were awarded sums of between £400 and £4,000 each for the repetitive strain injuries sustained during the course of their employment as production line workers during the 1980s. The claimants suffered from pain and discomfort in their hands, wrists and thumbs to varying degrees.

Claimants: Various, male and female.

Employers’ Liability: The claimants, during the course of their employment throughout the 1980s at various processing plants, carried out a variety of repetitive tasks where there was a known risk of developing repetitive strain injury (RSI) or tenosynovitis. Tasks included the killing and evisceration of poultry, cutting, twisting, gripping, lifting, moving boxes, bagging and boxing.

The claimants sustained injuries and brought actions against the defendant alleging that it was negligent in its health and safety duties by failing to: (i) warn employees of the risks of tenosynovitis so that they could make an informed choice as to whether to incur that risk; (ii) warn employees to seek medical advice at first signs of aching in the wrists and hands; (iii) provide mechanical means to assist in applying squeezing pressures; (iv) arrange for a gentle introduction to the work for each new employee; (v) arrange the duties of the employees so they would not spend every working hour carrying out actions which would be likely to promote tenosynovitis; and (vi) provide sufficiently sharp cutting tools and scissors.

Liability disputed. The defendants relied on the fact that they had issued "teno notices" to employees from August 1983, updated in 1985, warning employees about possible discomfort in the upper limbs and that they had referred to tenosynovitis in their safety policy. The defendant also argued that they had raised the matter at interview with prospective employees and had verbally told employees to report to the nurse at first sign of symptoms.

The nine claims were selected from a pool of one hundred outstanding claims against the defendant employer as it was envisaged that the outcome of the claims would form a basis upon which the other claims could be resolved without the necessity for further hearings.

At trial the judge held that the defendant was under a positive duty to:

(i) warn and educate its employees as to the risks of tenosynovitis. The case of Pepall v Thorn Consumers Electronics Ltd (1985) was considered in this context as the judge in that case, Woolf J, defined what was required as a "relatively sophisticated programme of educating and warning employees and implementation by management at a high level". In particular, there was a duty to warn certain categories of employees, namely new employees and existing workers in the event of a transfer in addition to generally providing periodic reminders to the work force. The warnings should sufficiently identify the risks of and potential consequences of tenosynovitis. In this respect, the defendant’s warnings were inadequate as firstly, they did not identify the symptoms or the reasons for prevention and early treatment being vital and secondly, not all of the claimant’s had been warned;

(ii) rotate jobs. It was a matter of conventional wisdom or common sense that rotation helped to reduce or even eliminate the risk of RSI. Further, the defendant was under a duty to do more than simply leave the question of rotation to the individual choice of its workers. In this respect, the defendant had failed in its duty to arrange an adequate system of rotation; and

(iii) effect a gentle introduction to line work for new processes in the case of tasks which the defendant knew or ought to have known to carry an inherent, specific and not insignificant risk of RSI. In this respect, the defendant had failed to put into operation a system for the gentle introduction of new workers.

In respect of the claimants who had not suffered from a clinically recognised condition, the judge reached the conclusion that they had experienced pain greater than normal and he regarded it more likely than not, given the circumstances, that the pain was consequent upon the work performed.

Injuries:
The claimants suffered from repetitive strain injuries to their hands, wrists and thumbs during their respective periods of employment.

Effects:
The claimants experienced various symptoms as follows:

The first claimant (C1), suffered pain in her hands within three weeks of carrying out repetitive work using her wrists and hands in November 1983. Thereafter, C1 made numerous visits to the defendant employer’s nurse. C1 was diagnosed with tenosynovitis and mild de quervain due to the inflammation of the tendons to the fingers and thumb of her right hand.

The second claimant (C2), suffered pain and loss of flexion in her left thumb shortly after commencing work for the defendant in 1983. As a new worker, C2 was commenced on all the jobs and was often on one job for two-thirds of the shift. C2 was referred to a rheumatologist and she underwent an operation to release her left trigger thumb. She could not work for nine weeks after the operation and although the operation was a success, C2 continued to experience problems and was retired on medical grounds in 1991.

The third claimant (C3), suffered from wrist pain, commencing with his left wrist and then his right wrist. C3 underwent operations to both wrists in 1987 to relieve bi-lateral carpal tunnel syndrome. However, he had been working for over two years before symptoms manifested themselves and no causative breach of duty was found in his case.

The fourth claimant (C4), suffered from recurring tenosynovitis after commencing work in 1983.

The fifth claimant (C5), experienced "extreme pain" to his wrist during his training period for the defendant from October 1984. C5 made numerous visits to the defendant’s factory nurse and on his return to work, his wrists were as bad as they had been when transferred. In 1987, he took time off work to be treated for carpal tunnel syndrome which was held to be a secondary condition to his tenosynovitis.

The sixth claimant (C6), worked for the defendant for two years before developing possible tenosynovitis symptoms. In 1986 he underwent an operation to remove a ganglion and it was held at trial that his condition was not work related. C6’s case was simply one of an occult ganglion which was misdiagnosed as tenosynovitis before the lump became apparent.

The seventh claimant (C7), suffered from a painful right hand, thumb and wrist from working for the defendant in mid-1984. C7 was diagnosed with bi-lateral de quervain’s tenosynovitis although there was also a possibility of existing cervical spondylosis.

The eighth claimant (C8), suffered with painful wrists during her training period with the defendant from October 1986. Although there wasn’t conclusive evidence of tenosynovitis, and it was not proved that she suffered from such a condition, the repetitive nature of work caused her to feel and suffer from aches and pains well beyond the normal aches and pains caused by fatiguing work.

The ninth claimant (C9) had been working in her role for the defendant for approximately two years from 1985 before she experienced aches to her wrists and it was probable that she suffered from tenosynovitis. However, at trial the judge could not find any specific breach of duty even though he did not doubt that working on the line caused the condition.