WRULD DB : Fifield - v - Denton Hall / Denton Wilde Sapte (Kathryn Fifield)

Fifield - v - Denton Hall / Denton Wilde Sapte

For Claimant
Claimant	Kathryn Fifield
Job title	Legal secretary
Job description	Legal secretarial work
Injury	Pains in hands, wrists, arms and shoulders
Defendant	Denton Hall Legal Services Denton Hall DWS Legal Services Denton Wilde Sapte
Court	Guildford County
Case No.	GU201779
Date	22 Mar 05
Judge(s)	His Honour Judge J R Reid QC
All Claimants	Kathryn Fifield
Solicitor	Charles Russell
Counsel	Mr Allan Gore (C of A only); Mr D Sanderson
Non-Medical expert(s)	Mr Andrew S Nicholson, Ergonomics
Medical expert(s)	Dr Martin Seifert, Rheumatology Dr Master, Psychiatry
For Defendant
Solicitor	Halliwell Landau
Counsel	Mr Jonathan Waite (C of A only) QC; Mr John Williams
Non-Medical expert(s)	Mr Ian A R Galer, Ergonomics
Medical expert(s)	Mr Rupert Eckersley, Orthopaedic & Hand Surgery Dr Reveley, Psychiatry
Outcome
Judgment for:	Claimant
Injury found:	Yes
Work related:	Yes
Breach of Statutory Duty:	Yes
Defendant negligent:	Yes
Damages
General:	£11,500.00
Special:
Other:
TOTAL:	£157,341.00
Observations
	Breaches of Regulations 2, 4 and 6 of Health & Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations found.
References

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.

The claimant, a 48-year-old woman was awarded £121,803 for the repetitive strain injuries sustained during the course of her employment between 1980 and 1999. The claimant suffered from widespread chronic pain affecting her hands, wrists, arms and shoulders.

Claimant: Female: Between 38 and 42 years old at date of accident; 48 years old at date of award.
Employers’ Liability: Between 1980 and 1999, the claimant was employed by the defendants as a secretary/audio typist. The claimant spent over 50 per of her time audio typing documents. In 1999, the claimant's typing workload increased by 25 to 30 per cent when she covered for another secretary who was on maternity leave and she was required to undertake that typing work in addition to her normal work load. On 23 February 1994, the defendants carried out a work station assessment and the assessor noted on the form that the claimant had been taking medication for her wrists. The claimant sustained injury and brought an action against the defendants alleging that it was negligent in its health and safety duties and/or in breach of its statutory duty under the Health & Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 in failing to: (i) carry out a suitable and sufficient analysis of her workstation and assess the health and safety risks (regulation 2 (1));(ii) reduce the risks identified in consequence of the assessments to the lowest extent reasonably practicable (regulation 2 (3)); (iii) plan the claimant's work activities so that her daily work on display screen equipment was periodically interrupted by breaks or changes in activity (regulation 4); and (iv) provide adequate health and safety training in the use of any workstation (regulation 6). The claimant also submitted that the defendants were negligent in requiring her to undertake work in addition to her normal work load because they ought to have foreseen the possible consequences in light of what they knew or ought to have known about her wrist pain. Liability disputed. The defendants denied any negligence or breach of duty and submitted that her symptoms were the result of a somatoform disorder. The defendants also submitted that they had carried out a work station assessment and had provided a booklet entitled "You and Your workstation". At trial, the judge held that the defendants were in breach of duty in failing to comply with the requirements of the Health & Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992. Furthermore, the defendants were in breach of regulation 5 of the Health Monitoring Regulations and the inadequate way in which the risk assessment obligations were undertaken also gave rise to a claim in negligence. The judge was satisfied that the onset of the claimant's chronic symptoms in February 1999, would not have occurred but for the defendant's breach of statutory duty and negligence.

Injuries:	The claimant suffered from repetitive strain injuries during the course of her employment.
Effects:	The claimant experienced widespread chronic pain affecting her hands, wrists, arms and shoulders. The claimant consulted her GP twice in 1989 and once in 1993 about her wrists. On 2 July 1993, she mentioned pain in the left first metacarpal joint. The GP however, found no swelling. In February 1999, the claimant's symptoms worsened significantly and she was referred to a rheumatologist. By this time, the claimant was experiencing very sharp pain in the sides of both her wrists, the right more than the left, and the pain spread up into her neck and shoulders and into her thumb. She found that she could not longer open envelopes with her fingers. On 22 April 1999, the claimant saw a rheumatologist who felt it was possible she was developing a recurrent de Quervain tenosynovitis in the wrists and recommended physiotherapy. The claimant was then examined by an occupational health doctor who diagnosed a work related upper limb disorder and recommended that typing should be restricted to four hours a day. The claimant managed to restrict her typing to less than four hours a day however, her symptoms did not improve. On 7 July 1999, the claimant was advised to undertake no keyboard work for four weeks and was signed off work. She underwent a course of physiotherapy and acupuncture and her neck symptoms improved, however, her wrist and forearm symptoms persisted. In August 1999, the claimant was forced to cease work as a result of the upper limb pain. By November 1999, the claimant's reported pain using the wrists in many everyday activities Prognosis: The claimant suffered from ongoing symptoms in her upper limbs and would never be able to return to typing work.
Court Award: £121,803 total damages.