WRULD Claims heard in Courts in England, Scotland and Wales

Hearing(s) - Chiacchio -v- TG Nuttall Packaging Ltd

Date	Court	Claimant(s)	Task	Injury	Judgment for
18 Dec 2009	Manchester County	Chiacchio	Handling sheets of cardboard	De Quervain's Syndrome	Defendant

The claim was founded on the propositions that the Claimant had suffered a work related upper limb disorder as a result of the repetitive nature of the work that he did whilst in the Defendant's employment. The Defendant's business was and is the making of cardboard boxes and cardboard display stands. It was common ground that the Claimant worked for the Defendant from about January 2005 to about February 2006 and that by early 2006 at the latest (and possibly as early as December 2005) he was suffering from what was agreed by the Medical Experts to be tenovaginitis stenosans, affecting the extensor tendons of the right thumb, otherwise known as De Quervain's Syndrome, but which was referred to in the Claimant's pleaded case as a tenosynovitis affecting the long extensor to the right thumb. The Claimant is right handed.

It was common ground that the work performed by the Claimant was predominantly but not exclusively repetitive. He always worked on the finishing processes. It was common ground that during his employment the Claimant had used 4 machines for gluing or stitching together components for boxes and that he had been involved in hand gluing cardboard structures for displays. He had been involved in feeding work pieces into machines (referred to in evidence as working at the front of the machine) and receiving and stacking and/or binding stacks of product (at the back of the machine).

Hand gluing, which was a separate process, was achieved by use of a hand held pistol-like applicator, referred to as a 'glue gun', in which a solid stick of glue was heated electrically to a liquid state near the point where glue was extruded through a nozzle. Extrusion was achieved and its rate controlled by a squeezing movement (essentially pumping liquid glue through the nozzle) exerted by compressing together the hinged parts of what would (in a pistol) have been the butt. There was no trigger in the ordinary sense. It was not a pinch grip between index finger and thumb.

Much of the evidence in the case was directed at determining the workload to which the Claimant had been subjected. The Claimant's evidence suggested a much heavier and unrelenting workload than the witnesses called by the Defendant.

After reviewing the medical evidence, at paragraphs 33 to 35 of the Judgment, HH Judge Armitage QC states:

I am satisfied that it is much more likely than not that the stenosis in the Claimant's undoubted tenovaginitis stenosans has been caused by degeneration/ageing than by use of the hand and wrist, whether repetitive and/or strenuous, or normal use in circumstances in which the ergonomic expects would regard injury as not reasonably foreseeable.

I am not satisfied that the claimant has established a causal link between his condition and any part of his work for the defendant. That conclusion does not depend on an evaluation of any proven work rate and/or pattern. I put the matter higher than a mere failure to discharge the burden of proof. I am satisfied that the claimant's condition is constitutional and that it is not occupational.

On this ground alone I dismiss the claim.

However, HH Judge Armitage QC goes on to review the evidence relating to liability, before stating, at paragraphs 50 & 51 of the Judgment:

I am satisfied that the claimant's evidence of workload is tainted by significant exaggeration. I prefer the evidence of the defendant's witnesses, the video evidence and the ergonomists, which lead me to the conclusion that -
a. The system of work actually practised did not give rise to any breach of duty owed by the defendant to the claimant.
b. It is unlikely that the claimant has suffered any injury as a result of his work.

For this reason also, I dismiss the claim

V1.01

Last updated: 16/04/2010