Bus engineer suffered serious permanent injury when his leg was run over.
The Claimant, an engineer working for Go-Ahead London Transport, had his tibia and fibula broken when a bus driver reversed over his leg whilst he was repairing the bus. The individual was left with permanent mobility problems and was unable to return to work as an engineer but the medical experts deemed him fit enough to carry out sedentary work. Much of the Claimant’s claim for compensation comprised of the earnings he lost as a result of being unable to return to work along with care he required from his wife in respect of daily chores, many of which he could no longer do.
– Matthew Trusch
Claimant injured as a result of a collapsing table in the work place.
I represented the Claimant who was employed as a chef. He was working in a kitchen when a table holding kitchen machinery collapsed onto the Claimant forcing him into holding the table steady to avoid further injury of the machinery falling on top of him. Another member of staff rescued him.
Liability was admitted by the Defendant due to the unsafe place of work and unsafe equipment provided to the Claimant, but causation and quantum remained in dispute. Proceedings were therefore issued. The Claimant suffered physical and psychological injuries and various medical investigations were required to ensure that all aspects of the injuries were dealt with appropriately.
The case settled prior to the listings appointment by way of a Part 36 offer made by the Defendant.
The claim settled for £45,000.00 and consisted of compensation for injuries sustained, past treatment, loss of earnings, travelling expenses and care and assistance.
– Suzanne Mason
Claimant suffered a lower back pain injury
I represented the Claimant who was working in the course of her employment at a service station. Pre-accident the Claimant was suffering from back pains and her employers were fully aware of this. Management continued to ask her to complete physically demanding jobs and her protests were ignored, which led to the worsening of her low back pains, causing her to suffer a lower back injury. The claimant experienced high levels of back pain whilst undertaking these manual handling activities and was absent from work for 4 months.
Liability was fiercely denied, the Defendant relied upon manual training which had be completed and a health assessment which stated that the Claimant confirmed that she did not have any back complaints. The Claimant maintained that they were fully aware and they would force her to carry out such manual tasks, which at times she physically could not do and would cry with the pain. Proceedings were issued. The case went to trial and the Judge found in favour of the Claimant.
The claim settled for £20,232.00 and consisted of compensation for injuries sustained and loss of earnings, medication and travel expenses.
Claimant suffered a knee injury at work. Claim successful despite being abandoned by her trade union solicitors on the advice of Counsel
The Claimant stumbled and fell backwards into a vehicle when, during a training session, she was required to use a foot operated mechanism to deploy and retract a step on a works van which was situated in the car park. Within a few days, the Claimant was struggling with pain in her knee. The Claimant did not initially report to her GP or to the hospital that she had suffered an accident so that initial investigations centred on non-traumatic causes of her knee pain. The Claimant did reference a minor work incident during an orthopaedic consultation but reported that she did not think the incident could have led to such a serious knee problem. It transpired that the Claimant had significant degenerative changes in the knee.
The Claimant sought our assistance after the solicitors appointed by her union rejected the file after some 2 years on the basis that Counsel had advised that causation could not be established.
Liability was also denied on the basis that the van was only a few months old and the mechanism was not faulty. Evidence was obtained from the Claimant’s work colleagues that the step was difficulty to use, that a number of colleagues resorted to operating the mechanism by hand, that the Defendant had advised not to use the step post-accident, that the risk assessment post-accident found the step could cause injury even if used correctly and that ultimately the step was replaced with a motorised mechanism. The medical evidence obtained suggested a 2 year aggravation/acceleration of the Claimants degenerate knee. It was argued that the Claimant had not appreciated the effect of the accident as she was unaware of the extent of the degenerate symptoms in her knee and hence her failure to raise the accident in her initial medical consultations.
Proceedings were issued as the Defendant refused to accept liability or causation. The Defendant was given permission to obtain their own expert evidence. The case ultimately settled for £17,500 in respect of the Claimant’s injuries, loss of earnings and care. The settlement reflected that causation was not straightforward and the Defendants expert evidence will likely to erode the prognosis.
– Carl Davies