It is not a very nice fact, but industrial disease does exist in many workplaces.
Your place of work is supposed to be a place in which you can flourish. Develop your skills, build your career and meet your financial needs – at least that’s what it says on the packet.
The truth, however, can be very different. Experienced personal injury solicitors are well accustomed to hearing and dealing with a far different story about industrial disease claims.
Injuries and disease occur in the workplace in many different ways. Perhaps you are required to work with tools or machinery that carry their own obvious dangers, or maybe you need to perform repetitive Technology Industry Jobs work such as working on a computer or laptop that lends itself to upper limb disorders including vibration white finger or carpal tunnel syndrome among several other recognised strain injuries.
Much publicity has revealed the danger of being exposed to asbestos, which can lead to the development of mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis or pleural thickening. Also, despite the presence of very stringent health and safety regulations today, many workers are still being forced to work without the safety net of risk assessments or being given adequate training or protective clothing. Another major area of risk is that of being exposed to dangerous chemical or fumes, despite COSH regulations.
Your first port of call if you feel that your medical condition is related to your place of work and has been caused by some form of negligence is to contact personal injury solicitors who specialise in Lighting Industry industrial disease claims. They will have the experience and knowledge to deal with cases where there has been a breach of health and safety regulations which may have exposed you and others to injury.
Usually, their advice would be to contact them very quickly and keep a record of events, but whilst some medical conditions caused by industrial reasons do become apparent instantly or within a few weeks, other conditions can often take years to develop.
Personal injury solicitors specialising in industrial disease claims usually offer ‘no win, no fee’ arrangements and may also be approved by legal expenses insurers who will pay your legal bill. They will also commonly promise you 100 per cent of your own compensation as their fees are paid by the defendants when they win your claim.
Industrial disease can wreak havoc with your life causing severe health problems and making a return to the workplace either unlikely or an impossibility. Putting your industrial disease claim in the hands of experienced personal injury solicitors protects your future.…
Tag: claims
The Complexities In Bringing Medical Negligence and Industrial Disease Type Claims
Medical negligence claims and claims for occupation or industrial disease are notoriously complex and challenging claims primarily because of issues relating to causation. Causation is the area of law that seeks to establish what actually caused the injury suffered by a Claimant.
In a standard accident claim such as a car or motorbike accident, it’s normally very easy to establish what caused the injuries suffered by a Claimant. The lawyers can therefore simply focus on who was responsible for the accident.
The issue of causation in medical negligence and industrial disease claims by contrast, are more complicated particularly in circumstances where the injury could have more than one cause, which is an area of law that has occupied the attention of the House of Lords on several occasions.
Currently, there are two differing, and on the face of it, inconsistent tests on causation known as the “material contribution” test and the “but for” (or direct cause) test.
The rational of the “But For” test is that if the Claimant suffers injury that would not have occurred “but for” the Defendant’s negligence, then that negligence will be deemed to have caused the injury. The important point made is that the negligence need not be “the” cause as there may be other things that may be relevant and contributed to the injury.
The case Barnett -v- CK HMC is an example of the “but for” test. Three men attended hospital with clear symptoms of illness. The duty nurse called the casualty officer who did not see or examine the men but advised that they should go home and see their own doctors. Five hours later one of the men died from arsenic poisoning. Medical evidence was obtained which indicated that even if the deceased received prompt treatment it would not have been possible to save him. So even where the casualty officer was negligent, the hospital was not liable for the death because nothing could have been done for the man in any event.
The second test of “Material Contribution” is also known as the Bolam test after the case of Bolam v Friern HMC.
By way of illustration of the “Material Contribution” test, a Court of Appeal considered a claim involving a steel dresser who contracted pneumonconiosis as a result of exposure to silica dust from using both a pneumatic hammer and swing grinders. There was a statutory duty to provide extractor fans in respect of the use of swing grinders but not in Industrial Development Ppt relation to pneumatic hammer. The issue was whether the dust was caused by the grinders or the hammer. The Court of Appeal ruled that the Claimant only had to show the dust from the swing grinders had made a material contribution to the disease. The Claimant did not have to show that the dust from the grinders was the sole cause of the disease.
As can be seen from these two approaches, there lies some inconsistency, as the outcome of a case will be …
Asbestos Compensation Claims Are an Insurance Industry Time Bomb
The use of asbestos was banned over thirty years ago, but the Insurance Industry now faces a time bomb of claims from people directly or indirectly exposed to the deadly substance.
Asbestos was once hailed as a miracle product but its use has exacted a terrible price for those exposed to it. Diseases caused by ingestion into the lungs such as Asbestosis and Mesothelioma may take over forty years to become apparent, and the true cost of the substance use in damages claims, is only just beginning to occur.
Asbestos has been used by man since ancient Greece for its fire resistant properties, but even then it was recorded that slaves exposed to it were dying from terrible lung disease and breathing difficulties.
In the twentieth century Asbestos was used in all sorts of construction and manufacturing processes. In every public building you would find pipes and boilers covered with the material. Shipbuilders and dockyards were particularly prevalent in its use and it was not uncommon to regularly see old ‘laggers’ and pipe workers coughing up the so called ‘Dockers oysters’. Offices were also exposed to asbestos with the use in partition walls and suspended ceilings. In the home it was used in all sorts of ways ranging from ironing boards to car brake pads and shed roof coverings.
By far the most deadly variety of asbestos is ‘blue asbestos’ of which a single strand in the lungs can cause the deadly disease years later.
The first asbestos related industrial injury claims appeared in the 1960’s and have risen dramatically since then. The use of the material in the UK was stopped by the H&SE (Health and Safety Executive) in the 1970’s but it was only finally banned in 1980. During Manufacturing Engineer Leading Companies that time many asbestos removal firms sprung up primarily to remove the substance from public buildings such as hospitals and schools. By 2003 it is estimated that the number of direct asbestosis claims accounted for a payout of over 1.3 billion pounds in the UK.
There are four recognised types of asbestosis related disease ranging from the savage lung cancer mesothelioma which usually kills within a year, through to what are known as ‘pleural plaques’ for which legislation in the UK does not currently allow claims, though this is set to change and could trigger billions of pounds worth of claims.
Pleural plaques are areas of scar tissue on Give Two Examples Of Heavy Industries the lungs caused by exposure to asbestos.
Although not directly covered for claims as the cause and outcomes cannot be proven, UK Insurance companies used to pay out small amounts to compensate for the anxiety of the possibility of the plaques developing into something more serious such as mesothelioma. In 2007 the House of Lords ruled that these conditions are no longer entitled to compensation, though this is currently being challenged by the Scottish Courts and others and is expected to be overturned.
The United States is about twenty years …