WRULD Claims heard in Courts in England, Scotland and Wales

Hearing(s) - Nicholson - v - Link House Magazines Ltd

Date Court Claimant(s) Task Injury Judgment for
5 Jan 2001Central London CountyNicholsonDSE use: numeric data entryCervical Nerve Root IrritationDefendant

Debbie Nicholson sought damages for Cervical Nerve Root Irritation and Pain in her right arm, which initially arose in March 1992, allegedly caused by her work as a Purchase Ledger Supervisor up to 1995. The Judgment of Mr Recorder Gallagher deals solely with the issue of causation, it evidently being common ground that the Claimant had suffered Cervical Nerve Root Irritation and that the defendant "did not in short, do all that they should or could have done to provide the claimant with a safe system of work". After reviewing the medical evidence, Mr Recorder Gallagher found that the Claimant's Cervical Nerve Root Irritation was not work-related and dismissed her claim.

What is noteworthy about this Judgment is what Mr Recorder Gallagher had to say about the Claimant's medical expert, Dr MacLoughlin:

Dr. MacLoughlin is not a specialist - indeed, his medical qualifications are of the most basic kind. He has what is known as the "conjoint" he is a licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians and a member of the Royal College of Surgeons. It goes without saying that he is not an N.H.S. or hospital consultant. Indeed his C.V. reveals that, other than during his training, he has never held any hospital appointment. He has been in private practice effectively all his professional life, and it is clear, no matter how he describes himself, that he is more in the nature of a G.P. than anything else. Why do I say this? I say it for a number of reasons. One, his qualifications, which I have referred to above. Two, his experience: he does not have the immediate (and I stress that word) responsibility for patients requiring specialist treatment. Three, he sees patients for numerous matters, thus Kabu Airlines, who retain him, bring their employees to this country to be seen by him - eight came recently. There was a boy with malaria, a man suffering from blindness, a woman a few days away from giving birth, a man with a cervical spine injury or condition. There were others - he told me what they were but I did not note them - and there were numerous conditions. Fourth, he refers on - by that I mean that he refers on, as he must, to specialists for appropriate treatment.

Crucially, though he takes an interest in upper limb disorder cases, he treats very few. At the moment, he sees in total about a dozen patients a week - by that I mean a dozen patients a week for all causes. Moreover, he is a man with (so he told me) with wide-ranging interest, in particular asbestosis, cancer of the bladder and carbon monoxide poisoning. He also has some form of military role (although he did not elaborate further on that). He is clearly a generalist and not a specialist, still less a treating specialist.For upper limb disorders, he told me in cross-examination:"I tend not to see them except for medico-legal work ..." and he limited himself to about two a week - by this I mean two a week suffering from upper limb disorders. When he began his evidence a few weeks ago in Brighton (in fact he then re-commenced it when the adjourned hearing reconvened in this court), he told me that he got the work because he was known to be sympathetic to patients. I have no doubt that he is a caring man, but the firm impression that I got is that he has allowed his sympathy to cloud his objectivity, and therefore his judgment.

The fact is that, as [the Defendant's medical expert] was constrained to say Dr. MacLoughlin just does not have the training or experience to make the findings he claims to have made. I have to say that I found him a singularly unimpressive witness, and I have considerable reservations as to whether he should properly be described as an expert in work-related upper limb disorders.

There is no reference in the Judgment to alleged breaches of DSE Regulations or to any findings in respect of statutory duties.

V2.01


Add a new case report

Last updated: 27/03/2014