March 5th, 2013 | By Work Injury
A worker at Stansted Airport, who suffered a broken back injury after being hit by a luggage towing vehicle, has resolved his claim for baggage handler injury compensation for an undisclosed settlement.
Mick Draper (64) from Braintree, Essex, made his baggage handler injury compensation after an investigation into his accident at Stansted Airport in March 2009 showed that the driver of the luggage towing buggy had worked eleven consecutive seventeen-hour shifts.
Mick broke three bones in his back after being thrown onto a luggage chute by the the impact and, regardless of a series of operations to repair the broken bones, is not able to walk, lift or perform domestic tasks without suffering from some pain.
It was claimed in Micks action for baggage handler injury compensation that his employers – Swissport – had previously been cautioned by his union Unite that the long hours employees were being allowed to work represented a risk to health and safety
Swissport admitted that they had placed their baggage handlers safety at risk of injury and settled Mick’s claim for baggage handler injury compensation out of court for an undisclosed amount.
February 20th, 2013 | By Work Injury
Dog bite work compensation claim to the tune of UK£6,000 has been awarded to a pizza delivery man, who sustained a finger injury when delivering advertising leaflets.
After being bitten, by an Alsatian-type dog owned by Vincent and Bernie Fitzgerald in Dublin in October 2009, Arpit Khurana (23) made his claim for a dog bite through letterbox after being bitten. Hospital treatment and a tetanus injection for the finger injury were administered to Mr Arpit. After this he visited his solicitor to discuss claiming dog bite at work compensation for his injuries.
The Fitzgerald´s denied Arpit´s injury claim. The Judge at Mr Arpit’s the original compensation hearing, Mr Justice Matthew Deery, in the Circuit Civil Court in February 2012, determined that he (Mr Arpit) had no legal right to stick his hand through the letterbox and , additionally, dismissed a claim by Arpit made against his employers – Apache Pizzas.
However, at the the appeal hearing at the High Court in Dublin, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley allowed Arpit’s claims on the grounds that the letter box flap did not reach the full depth of the aperture and said “It seems to me entirely possible the dog in fact got its nose under the flap and managed to bite his hand.” She found that this sufficient evidence to prove that the Fitzgerald’s had been negligent.
The judge awarded Arpit UK€6,000 in his dog bite work compensation claim plus costs for his two court cases.
November 7th, 2012 | By Work Injury
Figures unveiled by the Department of Work and Pensions compensation recovery unit have indicated that workplace injury claims in Scotland increased by almost a quarter in the twelve months to March 2012.
6,191 personal injury claims were filed by the Department of Work and Pensions during the year, as opposed to 4,955 throughout the previous twelve months and in spite of workplace accidents in Scotland reported to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) declining by almost 7 percent in the same period.
The percentage increase in workplace injury claims in Scotland is six times higher that recorded in England and Wales and, according to a leading Scottish solicitor, could increase still further. Fear of losing their job and not getting another one – particularly in the current economic climate – may have held workers back from making work injury accident claims in the past he claimed but “given the preponderance of employment in agriculture and construction, plus the significant rates of accidents in this country, we would expect a lot more claims.”
Commenting on the increase of almost 50 percent in work deaths in Scotland, Alistair McNab – HSE head of operations in Scotland – said: “While there has been a welcome drop in injury and ill-health in Scotland, the increase in workplace deaths proves that there is no room for complacency. It is important that efforts are concentrated on managing the risks that lead to serious harm in workplaces throughout Scotland. It is unacceptable that Scottish workers are still failing to come home from work safe”.
There are two important factors which should be taken into account when comparing the number of injuries reported to the HSE against the number of workplace injury claims in Scotland. First, as unemployment continues to rise in Scotland, the percentage drop in workplace accidents in Scotland is much lower if measured in injuries per 100 employees.
Secondly, only reportable injuries under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) are filed by the HSE. If an employer fails to inform the HSE of a workplaceincident – or it does not qualify under RIDDOR regulations – that accident and injury is not considered in the annual report.
November 2nd, 2012 | By Work Injury
A 21-year-old woman has received a settlement of compensation for an employee slip in McDonalds which left her with a knee injury due to the alleged employer negligence.
The unnamed woman was working as a kitchen assistant in McDonalds when, in May 2010, she was moving from the kitchen into the washing area and slipped on the tiled floor where water had been spilt.
Having landed on her left knee, the fall caused soft cartilage damage under the kneecap which left the woman unable to manage stairs and gradients for two days. She also suffered for two months from pain and stiffness in the left knee.
The woman´s GP sent her for physiotherapy and she was forced to use crutches – restricting her walking for two months. Her mother took time off work to care for her while she had two weeks off work and the woman returned to a different role so that she could sit whilstshe was working. After two months, she returned to her pre-accident work duties.
The woman brought a claim for an employee slip in McDonalds, claiming that the company failed to comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 s.3.1 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 reg.3.
She also claimed that McDonalds were not compliant with the Work Place Health Safety and Welfare Regulations 1992; which placed a duty of care of McDonalds to keep the floor in the workplace and the surface of every traffic route free from any substance which would cause a person to slip.
McDonalds denied their liability, but negotiated an out-of-court settlement amount to 2,076.50 pounds in compensation for a slip in McDonalds to account for the girl´s pain suffering and loss of amenity.
August 11th, 2012 | By Work Injury
An inquest into the death of a former BT Building Contract Manager has heard that the deceased made a BT engineer mesothelioma industrial disease injury claim for compensation shortly before he died.
At the inquest, Assistant Deputy Coroner Dr Peter Harrowing was told that Derek Butler (74) from Weston in Somerset – a former BT draughtsman and Building Contract Manager – had been diagnosed with mesothelioma cancer earlier this year, an industrial disease normally caused by exposure to asbestos dust and fibres.
Dr Harrowing heard from Dr Justin Pepperell – Mr Butler´s consultant physician – who confirmed that Derek had died from malignant mesothelioma, and was also read a statement composed by Derek shortly before his death, in which Derek explained the reasons why he believed he had contracted the deadly cancer.
The statement showed that Derek had worked for British Telecommunications from 1967 as a draughtsman and, from 1980 until his retirement in 1996, as a Building Contract Manger. Although many of Derek´s duties revolved around planning the remodelling of buildings which were converting from mechanical telephone systems to electric telephone networks, he was often called upon to be present at building sites to supervise the work.
It was while at these building sites that Derek was exposed to asbestos coated telephone wires which – as the remodelling was in progress – released a significant amount of asbestos fibres and dust into the atmosphere. According to statement Derek made the protection supplied by BT against exposure to asbestos consisted of several plastic sheets which failed to protect people working at the site.
Derek had commenced a BT engineer mesothelioma claim for compensation shortly before his death and speaking at the conclusion of the inquest Dr Peter Harrowing stated: “Mr Butler did not work directly with asbestos but when working with BT and working with buildings which were remodelled it was likely he was exposed to asbestos during that work. I accept the medical cause of death as being one due to industrial disease.”
July 29th, 2012 | By Work Injury
A woman, who slipped on grapes which had fallen from a display outside a shop and injured both wrists in her subsequent fall, has had her compensation claim for slip on grape injury upheld in the High Court.
Samira Hassan (57) from Greenford, Middlesex, took the legal action against shopkeeper Onkar Singh Gill (50) following her accident in 2005. While inspecting the fruit display placed on tables outside Mr Gill´s “The Stall” store in Greenford Road, Samira slipped on grapes which had fallen from the display and fractured both her wrists.
After taking legal counsel, Samira made a claim for slip on grape injury, claiming that the grapes on which she slipped were “mushy” and that the staff at Mr Gill´s shop had failed in their duty of care to the public. Mr Gill contested the compensation claim – insisting that his staff had taken all reasonable steps to keep the pavement clear of debris – a County Court judge last year ruled that Mr Gill was liable for Samira´s injuries and ordered him to pay 111,859 pounds in compensation for slipping on a grape.
Mr Gill appealed the ruling but, at London´s High Court, Lord Justice Lloyd – sitting with Mr. Justice Morgan and Sir Stephen Sedley – upheld the County Court´s decision and order that Samira should receive her full settlement of injury compensation in respect of her claim for slipping on a grape injury.
July 16th, 2012 | By Work Injury
A boy, who sustained head and leg injuries after his bicycle was struck by a vehicle, has had the settlement of his child cycling injury compensation claim approved by the High Court in Dublin.
Bartosz Zakrzewski (11) , sustained these injuries in July 2010 when he was just nine years of age. As he rode his three-wheeled tricycle he was struck by a vehicle driven by Caitríona Kelly. Such was the extent of the collision, Bartosz was thrown several metres from his bike and sustained significant head injuries, lacerations all over his body and a broken leg.
Through his mother, Monika, Bartosz made a child cycling injury compensation claim against Ms Kelly – claiming that she had been negligent in her driving and had acted in breach of her duty of care. Ms Kelly refuted the compensation claim and, due to the potential amount of child cycling injury compensation that Bartosz might have received for his injuries, the case was scheduled to be heard at the High Court.
However, shortly before legal proceedings were about to begin, the High Court judge due to hear the case – Ms Justice Mary Irvine – was informed that the child cycling injury claim had been resolved without admission of liability and a settlement of 100,000 Euros in compensation had been agreed between the two parties. Ms Justice Mary Irvine approved the child cycling injury compensation settlement, saying that she had sympathy for both the Zakrzewski family and Ms Kelly.
July 10th, 2012 | By Work Injury
Farm asbestos claims for injury compensation may potentially increase following new regulations introduced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
Farm owners, and those who rent farms on a full repairing lease, could be liable to asbestos injury claims from employees and farm workers who develop asbestosis and mesothelioma cancer from the inhalation of asbestos fibres present in farm buildings.
The new regulations tighten up the current Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 to take account of the European Commission’s view that the UK had not fully implemented the EU Directive on exposure to asbestos (Directive 2009/148/EC).
Although the majority of changes to the previous regulations are restricted, the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 now makes it compulsory for farm owners and employer-tenants to record, and in some cases report, non-licensed work which was previously permitted.
In addition to the new working rules, farm owners and employer-tenants (“duty-holders”) have been reminded by the HSE to:-
- Conduct out a risk assessment of all non-domestic buildings which contain asbestos and “asbestos containing materials”
- Formulate a plan of the farm and farm buildings – identifying where asbestos may be present and indicating each building with the appropriate sign
- If uncertain about the type of asbestos present in farm buildings, the duty-holder must arrange for samples to be tested in an UKAS accredited laboratory
- Regularly check the condition of the asbestos and deduce whether the asbestos needs to be removed or sealed to prevent the risk of injury
- Arrange for the removal of asbestos which creates a hazard to health only using a licensed contractor
- Inform workers, contractors and farm visitors (i.e. vets) of the presence of asbestos and make sure they do not disturb it
A study in 2008 estimated that in excess of 50,000 farms in the UK (from a total approaching 300,000) had non-domestic buildings which contained asbestos or “asbestos containing materials”. Not all of these buildings are erected with the dangerous amphibole (or “blue” and “brown”) forms of asbestos however, failure to adhere to the new regulations would expose farm owners and those with a duty of care for the health and safety to farm asbestos claims for compensation should a farm worker or farm visitor contract an asbestos-related illness due to the duty-holder´s negligence.
July 2nd, 2012 | By Work Injury
A man who had two teeth unnecessarily removed by a negligent dentist has accepted an out-of-court settlement of 4,000 pounds in respect of his claim for dentist´s malpractice compensation.
John Turnbull (56) from Gateshead underwent the negligent treatment at the Glenholme Dental Practice in Dunston in 2008. The practice at the time was run by Dr. David Stewart, who John had been using for fifteen years. However, on this occasion, Dr. Stewart informed John that he had an infection and that two of his bottom teeth were in need of extraction.
Post treatment, John experienced excruciating pain for several weeks and, when returning to the surgery to try and get further treatment, found the practice had closed. John sought treatment elsewhere and, when it was discovered that the teeth had been taken out unnecessarily sought legal advice about making a claim for dentist´s malpractice compensation.
When compiling John´s claim, his legal advisers discovered that Dr. Stewart had failed to diagnose and treat decay on another tooth and that three further claims for dentist error compensation had also been made against Dr. Stewart. Although Dr. Stewart denied liability, he was struck of the Dentists´ Registry in March 2010 and John´s claim for dentist´s malpractice compensation was resolved with the former dentist´s insurers.
June 22nd, 2012 | By Work Injury
BT has announced that the company will be applying limits to BT worker´s loss of hearing compensation claims with effect from 1st January 2013 in accordance with the Statute of Limitations.
This announcement reverses a decision made following the Watkins v British Telecommunications court case in August 2010, in which the company acknowledged that it had exposed engineers to excessive levels of noise likely to cause injury by supplying them with inappropriate oscillating and amplifying equipment to trace, install and repair BT telephone lines.
At the time of the court case, BT said that it would honour all BT workers and former BT workers loss of hearing compensation hearing claims without limitation where the engineer had been provided with green and unmodified yellow testing sets, and this paved the way for many former employees who had suffered a loss of hearing to recover compensation.
Currently, BT workers and former employees of British Telecommunications who have been diagnosed with a loss of hearing injury are able to settle their BT loss of hearing claims for compensation out of court irrespective of when their injury was diagnosed – with most compensation claims for BT worker´s loss of hearing being settled for between 5,000 pounds and 20,000 pounds.
However, from the end of the year, BT intends to apply a three-year time limit on BT workers loss of hearing compensation claims from the date on which a BT engineer or former BT worker is diagnosed with hearing loss problem; after which time, should a period of more than three years elapse, the company will challenge their liability for the injury.
Although the announcement will make little difference to former employees who have recently been diagnosed with a loss of hearing injury due to the negligence of BT, the Communication Workers Union (CWU) has advised any BT worker or former employee suffering from a loss of hearing to seek legal advice at the first practical opportunity.
Please note: Not all BT workers loss of hearing compensation claims are settled out of court. In January 2012, a claim for compensation for BT worker´s loss of hearing was heard in Cardiff County Court (Dew v British Telecommunications) after BT disputed the former employee´s claim which included the cost of a privately purchased hearing aid. The judge upheld the claim and the former BT worker received a total of 19,372 pounds in settlement of his BT worker´s loss of hearing compensation claim.
