The Nuts and Bolts of Workplace Injury Rights

Featured Post

We recently talked about what you should do if you find yourself injured at work. In the minutes and hours that follow your injury, there are a number of things you must make sure get accomplished. These include documenting the accident and speaking with a qualified legal representative. It’s good to prepare to do these things before you ever get injured, in fact. Being prepared can make terrible situations like these go much more smoothly.

But there is another bit of knowledge that will be helpful if you ever find yourself injured on the job. There are certain pieces of legislation that guarantee your rights, should you ever be hurt while working for an employer. If you know your rights, you’ll be a lot more certain of getting beneficial resolutions to your workplace injury claim. We’ll briefly cover a couple of these specific rights in the following. It’s important to note that there is a lot of diversity from state to state when it comes to workplace injury laws. The following are nationwide characteristics that you can generally rely upon wherever you happen to be injured at work, despite the specific laws found in your state.

• You always have a right to leave work to see a doctor for treatment of your injury.
• You have the right to put forward a formal claim about your illness or injury. Your case will be seen in a workers’ compensation court or an industrial court run by the state.
• If you go to the hospital after an injury and are released, you have the right to go back to work. You can’t be sent home.
• If you are so badly hurt or ill that you can’t go to work, regardless of the duration, you have the right to disability compensation of some kind. This will vary a lot state to state, but there will always be some kind of compensation available to you.
• You can appeal an employer’s decision regarding your worker’s compensation claim. You can also appeal the ruling of the compensation court.
• You have a right to legal counsel and representation throughout every step of the injury claim, compensation, and appeal process.

There are some states that are more generous towards injured claimants than others. It’s important for you to understand the general political climate of your state with regard to workers comp claims. This is especially true if you have a risky job, one where you come in contact with sick people, or if you perform any kind of manual labor. It is useful for every American worker to be equipped with this information.

It is also helpful to know to whom these rules do not necessarily apply. If you are self employed or are marginally employed through various non-traditional means, you won’t be able to hang your hat on any of these rights. If you are likely to be injured at your work in a role such as this, it is worth your while to consult with an injury lawyer ahead of time to understand your specific rights in the event of an injury.

We hope this helps, and that you will enjoy many injury-free years at work!

How to Act in Your Best Interests If You Are Injured at Work

Featured Post

One of the worst things that can happen to a person is to be injured at work. Even though there are rights and laws in place to put you in the best possible place during this trying time, these laws won’t act for you. It’s important to do everything you can to fight for yourself. Here are a few ways to get through a workplace injury with the best possible outcome.

1) Immediately Talk to HR and File a Claim. A Human Resources officer should be in touch with you as soon as you are hurt. If this doesn’t happen, contact them. When contacting them, ask to file a claim and make sure you investigate the matter to your heart’s content, knowing that they’ve told you everything you need to know to make your case. Turn in documents immediately, getting help if you are incapacitated or hospitalized. Don’t delay. If your business is small and without dedicated HR, it’s important to go one step further.

2) If You are Injured on the Job, Get a Solicitor. No matter who you are, but especially if your employer doesn’t have an HR team to help you file your claim, you need legal representation on your side. When you are injured, you are likely not at your best. You might be on pain meds. You might be away from home for long periods of time. You may see your income delayed. A solicitor can help put everything right and get you the restitution that you need. It is good to contact a solicitor as soon as you are hurt. Sometimes employers have been known to act in their interests, rather than in the interests of an employee. If you solicitor doesn’t specialize in workplace injury, ask them for a recommendation of a colleague who does. Don’t stop until you are satisfied that you have good counsel.

3) Follow Up With Your Claim. It is important that you don’t forget about managing your claim. When you are injured, take pictures of the injury, the job site where it happened, and get signatures from witnesses. When you are hospitalized, similarly document that. Keep track of expenses and lost work time. When the claim is filed, call daily about its progress to all relevant parties. An accident at work claim takes time to process, but you can likely accelerate it by keeping track of this yourself and having your solicitor help too.

Many people who get injured at work find that when all is said and done, they missed out on the aid that they were due. This is a terrible outcome, especially for people who may experience ongoing health difficulties following the initial injury, as well as earning tumult. To put yourself in the best position following workplace injury, it is important to be vigilant and to fight for yourself. This is not to say that representation shouldn’t be one of your first moves; it should. But you need to make sure they you are aware of how things are progressing, so that your rights are recognized.

Legal Grey Areas: where it helps to have a lawyer

Guest Post
Most people don’t have a lawyer. Some people skate through life without ever getting involved, one way or another, with legal trouble. But these folks are actually in the minority. In reality, there are dozens of common events that draw normal, honest people into the courtroom. These things are unavoidable, and include car accidents, medical malpractice, and other regrettable events that make Oregon residents need an expert in Oregon law. Of course, not everybody is from Oregon, but I say this to point out that every legal scene is different. Different states have different laws, various ways they try and prosecute different offences. If something goes wrong in your life, you’ll need more than a simple Google search. A committed lawyer will be able to give you personalized advice and counsel, getting you the justice that you deserve, and fast.

But sometimes, it’s hard to know whether you need a lawyer or not. Maybe an offense has taken place, or then again, maybe it’s not worth the trouble. I’m here to tell you that there is no virtue in letting yourself be hurt or exploited without taking advantage of the services of a qualified lawyer. Let’s take the case of medical malpractice, for instance. If you have suffered a long, painful recovery because of a medical mistake, you need to report it and receive the restitution that you deserve. This is because it’s not just you out there. Lots of people are hurt by medical malpractice every year, and unless these cases are reported and paid for, legislation and policy isn’t going to exist for the good of regular people like you. By letting careless doctors get away with mistakes, you are becoming a part of the problem, perpetuating medical carelessness. It’s grey areas like these where you need to talk to a lawyer, to help you understand the big picture and get you the justice that you deserve. Here are a few examples.

1) Nursing Home Neglect. It can be a sad thing to have an elder person in your life have to go to a nursing home. This is a person who has been strong for most of your life, but who has gradually weakened to the point where they can no longer care for themselves properly. In some cases, older people are neglected or even abused in nursing home settings. These situations are in the minority, but they do occur, leaving these older folks hurt and vulnerable. But it’s hard to know, as an outsider, if this is what is occurring. Even if you are a son or daughter of one of these people, you aren’t around the see these events happen, and staff may explain away the telltale signs. You also won’t know what to look for. This is where Oregon Personal Injury Lawyers are just what you need. They’ve got experience in the field. They’ve seen these cases hundreds of times, and they can tell you exactly what you need to know in order to pursue justice.

2) Food Poisoning. All of us, at one time or another, have gotten sick from some food we had at a restaurant. Most of us would want to shrug it off, but the fact is that most food poisoning incidents result from poor sanitation and food handling standards. By failing to report a case like this, you may be perpetuating wrongdoing at these restaurants leaving other people vulnerable. You are also entitled to restitution for pain and suffering, as well as time spent away from work.

As you can see, there are a variety of situations where bad things happen, but you may not know whether or not to pursue legal action. In cases like this an experienced Oregon lawyer may be exactly what you need, to help you navigate the trying legal waters before you.

Your rights if you’re injured in a public place

Guest PostThe owner, manager or proprietor of a public place is legally obliged to ensure that the place, when it is accessible by the public, is safe and free from risk. This duty of care requires there to be a certain level of cleanliness, tidiness and warning of potential hazards.

What is defined as a public place?
Supermarkets, parks, pubs, schools, etc. all are designated public places. Essentially, any person that allows members of the public onto their premises has a duty of care to take reasonable responsibility for their safety whilst on their premises.

Even public footpaths and roads are considered public places, as they are owned, managed and maintained by the council. Hence, if an accident is the fault of a poorly maintained footpath, it is the council’s responsibility, or lack of duty of care.

All owners or management of public places are expected to have public liability insurance. If compensation is sought, much like a car insurance policy, funds are paid from the insurer to the victim.

The thin line between liability
It is often difficult to know whether you’re in a public place. Is that footpath council owned, or is it a private property? Is the car park part of the supermarket or are they only liable when shopping inside the store, and what about the entrances and doorways? Plenty of accidents take place on escalators, at doors, emergency exits or on stairwells, so is the manager liable?

In the legal sense of the term, a public place is anywhere which is privately or publically owned, and, either by direct, expressed or implied invitation is accessible by the public. On the other hand, places which are used exclusively by individuals or groups for personal purposes are not defined as public places.

The importance of signs
Hazards in public places are unavoidable; people will always spill things, move items and generally cause dangerous situations for other visitors. However, it is how the management deals with such a situation which can cause more of an issue. We’ve all noticed ‘caution wet floor’ signs and similar warnings when out and about, but these are vital to ensure the management is safe from liability should an accident happen. Any spillage should be cleaned and warned of, similar with debris being removed promptly and all hazards being addressed. That way, the general public is aware of, and will avoid, possible accidents.

Many accident claims are down to the fact that the management of a public space has not taken sufficient steps to warn the public of a hazard.

Your right to make a claim
If you were harmed in a public place, in an accident which was no fault of your own, you’re entitled to make a claim for compensation. An owner’s public liability insurance is in place to deal with such claims. A good solicitor will help you to decide whether it was a public place and whether you’re eligible to claim, so after an injury it helps to detail as much information as possible.

A court case, and any financial settlement received by the victim, will help to address the serious issues poor health and safety in a public place can cause. Often, slips, trips and falls cause terrible injuries and further implications for an individual, for example, being unable to work for a long time, extensive rehabilitation or having to rely on family and carers to support the home and family. Compensation will help considerably to cover these costs, leaving a victim free to recover at their own pace.

School closures during snow

From Popsci.com 22/01/14:

When a storm is brewing and the streets are soon to be rendered useless by mounds of snow, there's really only one thing running through every student's mind: please let tomorrow be a snow day. Now there's science to back up canceling [sic] school due to nasty weather. According to a study by Harvard Kennedy School assistant professor Joshua Goodman, keeping the school doors open can actually hurt learning more than a snow day closure.

The explanation for this, according to the article, is as follows. When a school remains open during a period of heavy snow, a lot of parents keep their children at home, whereas others might make it in to class. That throws the pupils’ progress out of sync, often resulting in the children who didn’t attend school during the snowy period missing out relative to their peers. However, where schools take the decision to close because of snow, substitute days are often added to the school calendar to make up for the missed time. (Well – they do in the US apparently.) That keeps classes in sync and ensures the world is a happy, shiny place.

Not convinced?

More pragmatically, there are a lot of other reasons why it might be better for schools to admit defeat during inclement weather and close for the day rather than trying to soldier on with skeleton classes. In most areas of the UK where snow is a rarity rather than a predictable yearly battle, pupils won’t be concentrating on schoolwork when there’s tobogganing to be done or snowmen to build outside. I remember from my school days that the onset of snow during a maths lesson turned into a free-for-all at the windows. Somehow algebra can’t compete with the prospect of playing in the snow.

What’s more, taking the decision to close a school when the weather dictates it really isn’t safe to open avoids all of those other problems, too. You know, like children slipping and injuring themselves in playgrounds resembling ice rinks. Then there’s the dangerous chaos that ensues from mums and dads doing the school run in a hurry in deep snow. Cars, small children and ice are a dangerous combination.

And head teachers have got their blood pressure to think about, after all.

The JACKSON REFORMS – are judges being too harsh?

Guest Post

As early as 2009 in his final report on reform of costs and civil procedure rules, Lord Justice Jackson made it very clear that his recommendations would herald radical and seismic changes to the conduct of civil litigation in the United Kingdom. When these became law in the LASPO ACT of 2012 and finally began to be implemented on 1^st April 2013 the legal profession had no excuse to be shocked by the change of culture in the civil courts. The new watchwords were EFFICIENCY, ROBUSTNESS and COMPLIANCE. No longer was a culture of justice at any cost to be tolerated. The new regime would be justice at proportionate cost. To achieve this civil procedure rules were rewritten and budget control of cases became paramount in the new system. So nearly a year since its implementation, it is a prudent time to assess how the new system has influenced actual cases. To claim success, the new regime needed to win the support of the judges in the civil courts, for in the final instance it is their interpretation of and adherence to the rules that matter

With any new system, especially one aiming to tighten up and reform, a strict and disciplined regime might be expected. If leniency and tolerance of slack practices, such as non-compliance on court orders such as filing witness statements on time, exchanging budgets 7 days before the hearing, were allowed, then the reforms would have been a waste of time and effort. Accordingly, the judges charged with interpreting the new regime have gone for tough adherence to the rules. The  most publicised case to date has been Mitchell v News  Group Newspapers, a defamation claim. The claimant’s solicitors were late in filing their budget. The judge, Master McCloud, applied the appropriate sanction, which was to treat the claim as having filed a budget to claim only applicable court fees. Such would have lost the claimant fees of over £500, 000 had the claim succeeded. The new sanction was CPR 3.9. A second hearing before the same judge, for relief against the sanction failed. The mitigating factors put forward by the claimant’s solicitors included staff shortages and pressure of work. The lack of indulgence marked the new stricter interpretation of CPR rules. The judge also cited that another case had lost its slot in the court’s timetable because of the failures.

Careful and fair use of court and judicial resources had been another aim of the Jackson reforms. Basically the judge had been unprepared to accept any excuses in the breach of the rules and court directives. Her judgment emphasised that the “new overriding objective was not only to deal with cases justly, but at proportionate cost to ensure compliance with rules, orders and practice directions” and that ,“ the stricter approach under the Jackson reforms has been central to this judgment.”

This was the first case where the Jacksonian principles had been applied and the first to go to the Court of Appeal. Again strict adherence to Jackson’s reforming philosophy meant that the original judgments were upheld. In November 2013 the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson emphasised that their decision was “harsh”, but justified it, “ if we were to overturn the decision to refuse relief, it is inevitable that the attempt to achieve a change in culture would receive a major setback…. We hope that our decision will send out a clear message. If it does, we are confident that, in time, legal representatives will become more efficient and will routinely comply with rules, practice directions and orders. If this happens, then we would expect that satellite litigation of this kind, which is so expensive and damaging to the civil justice system, will become a thing of the past.”

With senior judges appearing so robustly supportive of the Jacksonian philosophies of greater efficiency, better business practice and careful cost management, then it is hardly surprising that recent judicial decisions might appear harsh and tough. But to achieve a more disciplined and compliant civil justice system, they would need to be. It is always easier for a new regime to start out tough and relax later. Too much tolerance and a relaxed approach now would not be the way forward to achieve any meaningful change in civil litigation culture.  After all, that is what the Jackson reforms are all about.

This article was written by Vannin Capital. Visit their website to learn more about how the Jackson Reforms could affect you.

Are personal injury claimants vulnerable to “fickle” insurers?

Guest PostA recent case in which an insurer attempted to make changes to a claim for a road traffic accident based on a change of heart on admission of liability has highlighted how vulnerable claimants can be to the whims of insurers.

In many cases claimants will deal with a number of different representatives from their insurance provider, making them exposed to changes in personal opinion – one insurer may want to approach the claim in one way, but another individual at the same company may have a very different view, and if they become the lead representative on the case it can cause real issues for claimants.

In the case mentioned above a recent applications to resile from an admission of liability was rejected by the court. The application was rejected for many reasons including the fact that no new evidence had come to light and the main crux of the accident was that liability had merely been mistakenly admitted.

As well as this there was no evidence to suggest that a claimant had been deliberately misleading, and as the claimant’s accident occurred more than three years ago – the standard time limit for making a claim – they would be left unable to claim the compensation they are entitled to should the claim in progress suddenly change track.

The judge in the case ruled in favour of the claimant and agreed that should the claim be stopped it would leave the claimant in less than ideal position.

This was clearly the right decision and it is positive to see the legal system veering on the side of claimants, who are the victims. The case also shows that claimants can be at the mercy of insurance firms – their case may be moved from person to person, and this could change its focus considerably.

More must be done to ensure that claimants are protected, and that the original focus and drive of the case remains in place regardless of who ends up handling the case. It is extremely unfair on claimants when insurers attempt to change their mind with no new evidence. It can happen when a file changes hands within an insurer and a new file handler takes a more bullish approach, for example.

McHale & Co is a full service law firm based in Altrincham, Cheshire, with expertise in family law, criminal defence, civil litigation, motoring offences and business crime.

It’ll be deadly this Christmas…

From This Week 24/12/13:

True fact: You are more likely to die on Christmas, the day after Christmas [commonly known as Boxing Day in good ol’ Blighty], or New Year's Day than pretty much any other day of the year.

Like ugly sweaters and bizarre fruitcakes, the spike in the fatality rate has become something of a yuletide tradition.

I’m not sure that bizarre fruitcakes are one of the symbols most associated with Christmas, to be honest, but let’s not worry about that now.

Indeed, the morbid trend appears to have held consistent since at least the 1970s, per a new CNN report. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 93 percent of all Christmastime deaths are due to natural causes — heart attacks, respiratory diseases, digestive problems, and the like.

While examining U.S. death certificates, UC San Diego sociologist David P. Phillips noticed that the paperwork seemed to pile up every year around the holidays. So he and his team pored over three decades' worth of death certificates and emergency room literature to try and figure out if the dreaded Christmas death spike was the real deal. Their conclusion: "There are holiday spikes for most major disease groups and for all demographic groups." (One noticeable exceptions: Children, who don't see a spike.)

Phillips and his team have a few theories why. Stress could certainly have something to do with it; the same with cold weather. One of the more frightening possibilities, of course, could simply be that hospitals are understaffed around the holidays, when health-care professionals are taking time off like everybody else to be with loved ones.

Coupled with that, the medical staff that are working over the Christmas period are likely to be stressed, tired and not at their best. It’s already widely known that, statistically, you’re more likely to die if you’re admitted to hospital on a weekend compared with a weekday, so this spike in mortality rates during the festive season isn’t really that surprising. But it’s not all bad news: medical negligence lawyers know that as well as bringing gifts at Christmas, Santa also brings plenty of work for the new year!

Besides all that, it’s not difficult to see why Christmas is such a dangerous time of the year. Risks lurk round every corner, accidents are aplenty and injuries inevitably ensue. There tends to be snow and ice underfoot (or flood waters of biblical proportions if recent Christmases in the UK are anything to go by), feasting to be done (which usually means burn injuries from hot cooking fat, scalds from overladen stoves and undercooked turkeys full of nasty e-coli just waiting to get you). There are Christmas decorations to trip up on, trees to topple over and squish you, and fairy lights, well past their prime, waiting to electrocute whichever unsuspecting victim ventures near. There are nuts and sweets to choke on (making it all the more surprising that children do not feature statistically as victims over Xmas) and newly-gifted power tools waiting to bite DIY-ers who are desperately out of practice.

And to top it all off, there’s the inevitable gloom of January just round the corner. Where’s all that festive cheer now, I wonder?

But ignore my miserable musings and the gloomy time of year. As the Cooperative food ads will no doubt be spouting soon: relax, Easter is just round the corner.

Personal Injury Compensation Claims – be aware of the time limits or risk losing out

Guest PostIn the UK, there is a general time limit of three years in which a personal injury claim for compensation must be made. If proceedings are not started in a court within this time frame, then the case becomes statute-barred and cannot be pursued.

Usually, the three year timeline starts either from the date of the accident or from the date that the person becomes aware that the injury is linked to the original incident. This is referred to as ‘the date of knowledge’. This ‘date of knowledge’ can be extremely useful for cases that involve exposure to a toxic substance, such as asbestos which may not reveal itself until decades later.

However, there are some variations about when the time limitation is set. For example, in fatal cases, the three year limitation begins from the date of death or from the date the death was linked to the original incident, be it an accident or exposure to a toxic substance. In addition, if a person dies part way through making a claim for compensation, the three year deadline begins from their date of death, enabling their family to continue with the claim if they wish to.

There are special rules too for children and for people being treated under the Mental Health Act (1983). In such cases, the time limit does not begin until their ‘legal incapacity’ is removed. For a child, this is at eighteen years old and for a patient being treated under the Mental Health Act, the date of their discharge. The three year time limit still applies. Therefore rather than having three years from the date of the accident in which to pursue a claim the law states that a ‘child’ has three years from the date of their eighteenth birthday, that being the age of maturity, in which to bring a claim. Their claim, therefore, must have either settled or court proceedings have been issued before the child/adult reaches the age of twenty one. This rule gives the parents or guardians of the injured child a choice, at the time of the accident, as to whether to pursue a claim immediately (and have any compensation awarded to the child placed in a court fund until the child reaches the age of eighteen) or to wait until the child reaches the age of maturity and let them make their own decision as to whether to pursue a claim for compensation for the injuries they sustained as a child.

A peculiar anomaly to this is if an accident occurs on an aircraft. The limitation period in this instance is only two years from the date of the accident.

In order to minimise the risk of your claim being prevented in law from being made due to the statute of limitation it is advisable to seek legal advice from an expert personal injury solicitor as soon as possible after the accident. Similarly, if a child has been injured it would be beneficial for the parents or guardians to talk through the options with a solicitor who specialises in child injury claims so that they are clear about what action they need to take.

For those who have had the misfortune to be in an accident or have been exposed to a toxic substance, it is also a good idea to seek legal advice at the earliest opportunity. In this way the injured party can avoid the risk of becoming statute-barred and have the best chance of making a successful claim for compensation.

Close Thornton Solicitors have a team specialising in personal injury claims. For further information, please contact Shaun Burke on 01325 466461 or email shaun.burke@close-thornton.co.uk

Victim of tragic paddling pool horseplay stunt has claim dismissed

From the Huffington Post 06/12/13:

A student who was left tetraplegic after horseplay in a paddling pool has lost his damages claim against one of the UK's leading drama schools, which he said was to blame for the accident.

Andrew Risk had reached the last day of his second year of a scenic arts degree at Rose Bruford College in Sidcup, south east London, when he took a long run at a large paddling pool filled with water to a depth of about two-and-a-half feet and dived in, hitting his head on the ground.

Mr Risk, 25, […] suffered immediate loss of sensation, was unable to move, and had to be supported by fellow students to enable him to breathe until he could be taken to hospital.

Now in a wheelchair and needing 24-hour care, he claimed his injury in June 2009 was caused by a breach of duty of care or negligence on the part of the college, which denied liability.

Today, Mr Justice Jay said that Mr Risk had not succeeded and, even if he had, he would have found him 75% to blame for the accident. [In short] the college did not owe a particular duty to protect the claimant from the risk he took.

On the facts of the case, [the college] did not assume responsibility for Mr Risk's safety and his accident was not reasonably foreseeable.

Cases like this are always difficult. Indeed, as Mr Justice Jay noted:

"On a human level, I regret the conclusion that I have reached, but to my mind the legal principles are clear and the weight of authority overwhelming."

Utterly tragic.

One question, though: have you ever known a claimant’s surname to be more apt?

‘Spike Away’ vest turns commuters into hazardous porcupines

From the Huffington Post 04/12/13:

Sick of your face being shmooshed into someone's armpit? Your head being used as a book rest? Feeling violated before you've even got into work?

Err, yes, yes and yes.  On a daily basis.

Cramped commuters of the world rejoice, a young designer has come up with the perfect solution.

Siew Ming Cheng has evidently had enough of rush hour on the Singapore subway.

Those space-invading commuters have brushed up against, knocked and pushed her one too many times, and now the young creative is declaring war on space snatchers with special body armour: the Spike Away vest.

Explaining her idea she said: "A quick brainstorming leads to a everyday situation. Trains are usually crowded during peak hours. Everybody will push each other to try and get onto the train.

"How can I protect my personal space? The idea was then conceived. 'What if I wear a vest that is full of spikes?'"

Yikes. That really could have someone’s eye out!  Just look at the reaction of the chap on the left. Pictures really do tell a thousand words.

Plus, wouldn’t it make it tricky to wear back-pack or other shoulder bag?

Quirky though it is, I fear the Spike Away vest may never make it past the ‘proof of concept’ stage. Every time it’s used, the wearer is potentially inviting dozens of personal injury claims being brought against them, not to mention the risk of being dragged off the train or bus head first and given a thorough beating.  Have you seen some of the people travelling on the tube?!?

And whilst it might help to encourage some people to keep their distance, the vest doesn’t appear to offer much protection from opportunistic gropers on the prowl.  ‘Bum grazing’, as I’ve heard it called, is rife on on the underground!

PCSO takes a tumble and sues

From the Metro 29/11/13:

A police community support officer (PCSO) is suing the owner of a derelict school building after she tripped and injured her knee while responding to a report of a break-in.

Pauline Harrison, 53, […] sent a letter to landowner Lightflask Ltd alleging that the firm failed to display warning signs outside the property […].

She says she suffered ‘soft tissue damage’ to her right knee when she fell over the 3ft high wooden fence in 2009 and is also claiming for a £14 prescription and £102 physiotherapy charge.

That’s not a prescription for spectacles, right? Just kidding. But perhaps the biggest question in all this is exactly how a person is able to fall over a 3 foot high fence in the first place. That’s quite an achievement.

Merseyside Police said they did not approve of the claim but that it was a private matter for the individual.

A spokesman for Lightflask Ltd has warned that this could set a dangerous precedent.

‘I don’t think people expect to be sued by somebody working in the police who claims injury in the course of their duties,’ he said.

People rarely expect to be sued, period. But it happens. Whether it should routinely happen in these types of situations brings public policy considerations into play.

‘Surely the nature of the job carries inherent risks and one obviously grows concerned that in this case the claimant is a community support officer and there must be a worry that these support officers may not be trained to the level of a regular officer.

Actually, I’m not sure that’s the point at all. The main point of the story, I think, isn’t so much that it involves a PCSO rather than a fully-fledged PC, but rather that this highlights the fact our emergency services are being increasingly litigious. But how concerned should we be about police officers regularly bringing claims against landowners from slip and trip injuries obtained whilst carrying out their routine duties? How many of these types of claims are succeeding? Is the law sufficiently sophisticated to properly consider the circumstances in which these injuries are occurring so as to give rise to a just result?

The police (and that includes PCSOs) are there to protect the public and enforce law and order. Like all emergency services, they are charged with responding to emergency calls in dangerous and difficult circumstances. Being in the line of danger unfortunately goes with the territory.

What’s more, it’s reasonable to expect police officers, including PCSOs, to be sure-footed, observant and capable of exercising common sense. But the scope of that expectation is necessarily affected by the prevailing circumstances in which that officer finds themselves. Clearly it’s vital for any claim brought by a member of the emergency services relating to an injury suffered whilst on duty to be assessed in the full and proper context in which it occurred. This means keeping the circumstances of their coming onto the land in question very much top of mind.

However, I think the law is already flexible enough to manage these difficult situations. Whilst landowners generally owe people who come onto their property (invited or otherwise) a duty of care to protect them from personal injury, that protection is subject to the rigours of the legal test for negligence. That test essentially considers whether a duty of care is owed to the claimant in the circumstances, whether that duty was breached, whether there was a causal connection between that breach occurring and the injury complained of, and whether the foreseeability of that injury occurring as a result of the breach was too remote.

In point of fact, in Higgs v Foster [2004] EWCA Civ 843, where a police officer in pursuit of a suspected criminal fell into an uncovered inspection pit at night, it was held that the landowner owed no duty of care to trespassers in the circumstances. This was because the landowner did not know, nor did they have reasonable grounds for believing, that a trespasser would enter his premises and come into the vicinity of the pit.

What’s more, in Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 231, it was held that the duty owed to trespassers must be determined by reference to the circumstances at the time the alleged breach of duty resulted in the injury to the trespasser. For instance, injuries flowing from a police officer forcing his way onto property in hot pursuit of a suspected criminal might be treated very differently to injuries suffered by the same officer who carefully made his way onto open land, uninhibited by walls or fences, to carry out routine enquiries. Potentially, applying the requisite legal tests for negligence claims in both of these different scenarios could give two very different results. Put simply, the law is readily able to take proper account of the context in which claims arise.

So maybe these fears of claim-happy cops is nothing more than media scaremongering after all.

‘I think the public seem to be at risk of being on the receiving end of litigation every time an officer does his or her duty and more so if that officer is not full-time or has not received the level of training commensurate with the role.’

I don’t know the full facts here, but it seems strange to suggest that a greater level of training would have prevented this; I’m not sure that ‘climb carefully over 3 foot high fences rather than fall over them’ is a lesson offered at Hendon Police College.

Earlier this year, PC Kelly Jones dropped a compensation claim that she was seeking from a Norfolk garage after she tripped on a kerb.

I covered the original story on Law Actually; let’s overlook the fact I hadn’t subsequently heard the claim had been dropped.

Ahem.

People Love a Bargain - Black Friday Attacks

From the Independent 29/11/13:

Black Friday, the American holiday dedicated to discount shopping, seems to have been successfully imported into the UK, bringing with it both crowds and chaos.

[…] Asda seems to have been particularly affected by the frenzy, with multiple reports of hospitalizations and injuries from Asda stores across the UK.

In an Asda store in west Belfast there were claims that heavily pregnant woman had been pushed and shoved and pensioners had been knocked to the ground [with one reportedly sustaining a broken arm in the process].

"It was just a free-for-all. It was frightening," said one woman who witnessed the scenes at the Westwood Centre. "People were getting trailed to the ground. [Getting what to the ground?] People were arguing with people. [At least they weren’t trying to argue with inanimate objects then!] Two of my friends were injured."

The woman claimed her friend was kicked in the stomach by a shopper trying to take a TV from her.

Similar reports have emerged from stores in Liverpool and Bristol, with eyewitnesses reporting in the latter store that a man had to be restrained by security guards after becoming annoyed that he could only buy a single TV.

Only on Bristolian could start a fight trying to purchase a TV!

I’m certainly not excusing the generally loutish behaviour seen during ‘Black Friday’ but, let’s face it, shopping is stressful. Christmas is more stressful still. Combine them both together (and add in herd instinct and small-man-syndrome) and you’ve got a potentially dangerous mixture. The January sales are bad enough, but after Christmas shopping is for fun; before Christmas, lives depend on it.

There’s simply no escaping from the fact that people love a bargain and when there’s the prospect of losing out on a good deal, people act irrationally. Heck, some would kill to get 40% off of a TV (or at least start a stampede).

Sadly, I think Black Friday is here to stay. Clearly the safety of customers is going to be an important consideration as the phenomenon grows even bigger. As I’m fond of saying, liability is never far away, and shops are going to have to start taking these risks seriously if they’re to avoid a wave of costly litigation.

In the meantime, I’m waiting for a documentary ‘Police, Camera, Action’ style which compiles all the CCTV footage showing customer scrums in supermarkets and shopping malls up and down the country on Black Friday. No doubt it would be voiced-over by a 20-something Northerner muttering an endless stream of utterly trite comments – as is the preference for narrators on TV shows at the moment.

For what it’s worth, I’ve been a bit of a sucker for a bargain this year, albeit from the relative safety of my office chair. Amazon have had a field day today (and that’s just down to me). Still, if you can’t spend of a bit of money at this time of year, when can you?

UK Drink Driving Law: Is Enough Done To Curb Deaths?

Guest PostWith the Christmas period quickly approaching, police forces all over the country step up their efforts to fight drink driving over concerns that too much enjoyment of the festive period (and all it brings) will inevitably lead to a rise in the crime. They’re not wrong to be concerned either – according to the Department for Transport, while deaths caused by drink driving have had a trend of steady decline in the last thirty years, last year’s statistics showed a rise of almost 30%.

It comes as no surprise, then, that there have been consistent calls this past year for tougher laws and regulations against a variety of driving offences – whether it’s drug/drink driving, or just using a mobile phone. There are plans to introduce stricter ‘drug driving’ laws next year (with harsher sentencing), Scotland plans to cut their limit by almost 50% and a victim’s sister has handed a petition to Downing Street calling for an immediate ban for those arrested on suspicion of drink driving.

A Steady Drop and a Sudden Rise: What’s Behind the Increase?
The RAC’s David Bizley has called these rises, which were announced earlier this year, a ‘call for concern’, and he’d be right to do so – while figures have shown a general decline since records began in 1979 (from 1,640 a year down to just 230 in 2011), last year’s figures showed a one of the first rise in almost a decade.

The reasons behind the rise are unclear, and it’s still lower than the figures from 2009 (as well as all years previously), but the suggestion seems to be that limits need changing and more effective enforcement of existing law is needed – both too high a limit and ineffective policing could be behind the cause.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (Rospa) has therefore called for a drop in the drink drive limit (recommendations have suggested lowering to 50mg per 100ml of blood) and for the government to re-evaluate their anti-drink driving campaigns, as well as to invest in tighter policing.

The Line between Lower Limits & Stricter Bans
A terrible case was brought to our attention once again recently as the sister of a student, who was killed by a drunk driver in 2010, submitted her 13,000-signature petition calling for a drastic change in law. As it stands, by default, those arrested and awaiting trial for a drink-related driving offence are still able to drive – a ban is to be handed down by a sentencing judge in the event a guilty plea is entered or guilty verdict is reached.

Of course, there are always going to be exception circumstances (like repeat offenders, High Risk Offenders, incredibly serious incidents etc.) and in these instances judges do have the power to ban anyone on bail. The Ministry of Justice have argued that, as a result, the powers already exist for judges to ban drivers in these most serious of cases.

A much lower drink driving limit could help to curb deaths, as well as result in harsher sentencing for what seems like a serious case but is not considered as such by law. As it stands, the UK’s alcohol limit is 80mg per 100ml of blood – while there are no plans for changes across the board, Scotland is going through legislative changes cut this by almost 40% to 50mg.

Automatic Bans – Not Considering ‘Special Reasons’?
However, a blanket ban could have adverse effects on either those who might later be found innocent, or those who are successfully able to argue exceptional hardship to appeal a ban. There are also special reasons to consider including drinks spiked/laced, or driving in an emergency (eg. if you’re fleeing from very real threats to your life).

Of course, incidents like the one above are absolutely awful, and shouldn’t ever happen – the man found guilty of causing the teenager’s death was, quite rightly, sentenced to four years in jail for death by careless driving. He was also almost twice the legal alcohol limit, so it’s perfectly understandable why the victim’s family felt the defendant’s ability to continue to drive while awaiting trial was ‘totally disrespectful’.

Nonetheless, the law has a duty to be fair and judges need the power to be able to make their own judgements (which is why the MoJ argue the powers already exist) – the appropriate line is a difficult one to find, especially with cases such as this and figures revealing a rise in deaths.

This guest post was written by Tom McShane – blogger and writer for drink driving specialists McMillans Drink Driving Solicitors. While all drink driving offences should be taken seriously, Tom hopes new legislation changes won’t fall down hard on innocent drivers or defendable cases.

The Most Common Causes of Car Accidents

Guest Post

Driving is a dangerous activity as not only does it have the potential to affect your safety, but it can also affect the passengers in your car, other drivers and their passengers, and any pedestrians. There are many causes for car accidents, but there are three main ones that are extremely worrying as they all come back to driver behaviour.

Driving whilst distracted, driving at high speeds and driving whilst tired are the main perpetrators. With a few adjustments, the chance of being involved in a car accident can be drastically reduced.

Driving Whilst Distracted
Driving whilst distracted can be extremely dangerous as it means you do not know what is going on around you. If a child runs in front of the road, you may not have been paying attention to notice them in time or, if you did, you may have slammed on the brakes or swerved and not noticed the car behind you or the cyclist on the other side of the road.

Being aware of what is going on around you at all times is important whilst driving. You need to be constantly checking for potential hazards and preparing for them early on. Distracted driving could be a result of changing or playing with music or the radio, using your phone whilst driving, eating or even dealing with children in the passenger seats.

Driving At High Speeds
The higher the speed you are driving at, the less reaction time you have. This could be a change in traffic, an obstacle you need to avoid or a change in road conditions. This means that an accident you could of potential avoided, could cause serious injury or even be fatal.

Due to the fact that you are driving at such a high speed the impact of your car on a person or piece of property is likely to have more damaging effects than if you were driving at a much slower speed. By reducing your speed and sticking to the designated limits, you could potentially save your life as well as the people around you.

Driving Whilst Tired
Driving should have your full attention, and that is something you can’t give if you are driving whilst tired. This is because your reaction times are much slower and you may not notice things that you may have done if you were fully alert. You are much more likely to miss road signs and any warnings indicating conditions up ahead, meaning that you will be unprepared for them.

You need to be able to react quickly to sudden changes in traffic and road conditions in case things happen quickly, especially on high speed areas such as motorways. If you are planning a long car journey, try swapping over every so often so that one person can get a bit of rest in between. Try to avoid travelling at night but, if it’s necessary, get a good night’s sleep the night before or take a nap before you leave; if you are too tired to carry on, stop off at a service station to take a break.

By making these minor changes to your driving you are less likely to be involved in a car accident that could be your fault. You do, however, still need to watch out for other drivers as they may not all be following such dependable driving conventions.

This post was written by Ekta Mair who, after being involved in a car accident that wasn’t her fault, wanted to provide some safer driving tips to other drivers. She sustained injuries from her accident, so used Claim Advance to ensure she received the compensation she deserved.

Buttock-shuffle claimant gotcha’d via covert surveillance

From the London Evening Standard 24/10/13:

A grandmother who claimed she could only shuffle down stairs on her buttocks managed to trick a hospital consultant as part of a “fraudulent” bid to claim more than £750,000 in compensation, the High Court heard.

Yowsa!

Barbara Fari, a mother of 13 who is in her sixties, sued Homes for Haringey on the grounds her life had been “drastically altered” after she tripped on a paving stone in Hornsey in May 2008 and hurt her knee.

You’ve got to watch out for those paving stones (particularly the uneven ones)! Of course, it will help your claim considerably if you actually trip over the ruddy thing and injure yourself as a result.

The council-run organisation initially admitted liability and offered to settle. But it changed its mind after Mrs Fari said she needed round-the- clock care because she could no longer walk unaided and could only climb stairs by shuffling up and down on her buttocks and lodged a claim for more than £750,000.

That claim was struck out at Central London County Court last October after Mrs Fari was caught on camera moving around without help during a secret surveillance operation.

That makes a change. Alleged cases of benefits fraud (or fraudulent civil claims) are usually uncovered via evidence of the relevant person dancing drunkenly on a table or twerking like the world isn’t watching - Miley Cyrus style.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^{Requisite photos of drunken table-dancing & Miley Cyrus twerking … as if you needed reminding!}

The judge rejected Mrs Fari’s right to any payout and referred her case to the High Court for abuse of process.

That really will give Mrs Fari a reason to clench her buttocks.

New Personal Injury Law may drive up quality of care

Guest PostEarlier this year there was a drastic change in the law concerning personal injury claims. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) was introduced in April 2013 and now represents a profound change in aspects of Legal Aid.^. There are winners and losers with this new act but the reason it had to be done has a sound basis. It was basically to combat the many fraudulent claims being made in ‘crash for cash’ illegal groups who arrange ‘accidents’ just to claim and also the surprising amount of legal companies who were making money from this.

Before the New Act:
Previously a personal injury claim was done on a ‘No Win No Fee’ basis and nobody could fail to notice the intense media advertisement of the companies handling these claims. If you were injured you would actually receive the full amount of compensation due with no personal cost at all. The solicitor handling your claim would rake back any costs involved, e.g. medical reports and expenses, fees from the court etc from the other party being claimed against – via their insurance cover.

After the April Act:
There is now tougher regulation and a ban on the ability for solicitors and claims management companies to handle any referral fees. Some rogue companies previously also took fees from customers just on a verbal basis without there being any written and agreed contract. This is now also banned.

The client now has to pay any of these additional fees out of their compensation amount awarded; they will be totally responsible for all their expenses.

The crucial part of this regulation is that if there is a dispute fees may be anything from just a few hundred pounds up to thousands. Any complex cases may even result in the personal injury claimant having to pay the defendants costs too. Consequently small claims have to have substantial and hard evidence of proof of accident to make sure that their claim is proven. Even so the problem has to be faced that the claimants costs may rise substantially and even wipe out the amount they are awarded completely. Good legal advice is therefore advisable before any claim is pursued.

So is this Act working?
In July the government reported that many Claims Management Companies have now shut down – and this is not just an odd few – it is hundreds! The Claims Management Regulation Unit (CMRU) released figures that proved the efficiency of the new Act. In March 2012 there were 2,435 registered companies handling personal injury claims. In June 2013 – only 2 months after the new Act was introduced, this number had reduced to only 1,700.

There are still mixed views on the eventual outcome of the new regulations and only time will tell as to whether they have achieved all their goals. However conclusively it has to be said that these measures are bound to have an effect on the ‘compensation culture’ which was becoming far too open to misuse. Ordinary people who are honest have been suffering the consequences of dishonest claims through a rise in their insurance costs. It is therefore definitely now advisable for anyone who feels they have a right to make a personal injury claim from an accident, to consult a solicitor first before contacting a Claims Management Company. The quality of advice honest claimants need can be now almost guaranteed to be of higher quality and the company handling the claim will necessarily take more care in their judgements and legal advice.

Late-Life Crisis Caused By Bereavement and Personal Injury

Guest PostWe’ve all heard of mid-life crises, but until recently, hardly any research had been performed on what is now being dubbed the ‘late-life crisis.’ Perhaps this is a symptom of higher levels of longevity in the modern world. Either way, one-third of 60-69 year-olds suffer from this psychological shift in the UK.

Late-life crises are largely periods of withdrawal, depression, isolation, and anxiety about this time of life. Unlike the mid-life crisis – which is largely caused by despair at how the chips have fallen, a loss of youth, and worrying financial concerns – the triggers for the late-life crisis tend to emerge from bereavements or personal injuries.

Why? Losing loved ones or your own mobility can make the elderly feel as if time is running out – increasing frailty is hard to accept for some, especially those who depended on their physical abilities to earn a living.

It’s Not All Doom and Gloom
One-fifth of 60-69 year-olds feel as if their views on life are unchanged, and for many, this is a time to take life more slowly – it’s a good time to live and maybe start moving into retirement or spending more time at the allotment/with the grandchildren/going on vacation, etc.

Understandably, this period of life does present difficult obstacles, such as failing physical health and a greater likelihood of friends and close ones passing away.

The online survey recorded the views of almost 300 60+s in the UK. Bereavement was cited as the most common trigger of a late-life crisis, closely followed by personal injury. Usually, stressful events that led to a late-life crisis were caused by poor health of love ones or themselves – it would make them more aware of their frailty and mortality, as a result.

Personal Injuries
As we get older, injuries become more likely. Especially personal injuries from slips or falls. And the older we are, the less quickly we are likely to recover and the less effectively we will heal. It’s important to claim compensation, if you are not to blame for your injuries, as you’re more likely to need expensive care. Road traffic accident solicitors can help you if you were involved in a vehicle collision, so get legal advice.

It’s common for road traffic accidents to jump-start late-life crises, as these experiences often involve loved ones in the car too. The experience can be traumatic and lives can be easily lost.

As people realise they can’t carry on as before, they experience a development crisis. When a person in their sixties is overwhelmed by loss-inducing events, it’s common for a late-life crisis to ensue. With better understanding of this process, psychologists can help treat this problem and aid elderly patients. Mental health issues can have as far reaching an effect as physical ones, and in some cases are so debilitating that living becomes exceptionally challenging.

Choosing a Personal Injury Lawyer

Seeking legal redress for a personal injury you have suffered can be a traumatic experience. Choosing the right firm to handle your case can go a long way to ensure the process goes as smoothly as possible.

Although many personal injury lawyers specialise in a particular area such as road traffic incidents, occupational or medical negligence etc. it is common for a wide variety of personal injury areas to be collectively handled by a single firm – certainly in the case of the larger, more renowned ones.

A short while researching your options on the internet would likely prove to be time well spent. The Law Society maintains a database with a helpful search tool to aid you in finding a suitable lawyer. You can narrow your search by geographical area which can make it easy, for example, to search for personal injury solicitors in Milton Keynes.

You may also want to consider checking whether a personal injury lawyer you intend to instruct is accredited by a recognised body such as APIL (Association of Personal Injury Lawyers). In addition, a simple internet search using Google or another popular search engine will not only reveal a multitude of personal injury lawyers but can also prove useful in searching for reviews of particular firms.

While some clients might feel inclined to opt for a local high street solicitor, many others choose to a firm which specialises in personal injury cases. Many of those firms advertise on TV and routinely handle all manner of personal injury related cases. It should be borne in mind that choosing a specialist personal injury lawyer may bring several advantages: not only will they be more conversant in all possible elements of your case but will be in a better position of choosing the best strategy and able to advise you at an earlier stage of the probable outcome.

One word of warning: be wary of firms who actively solicit your business through cold-calling or through door-to-door ‘sales’. While reputable firms of course advertise, personal injury firms who use invasive cold-calling techniques may not be trusted to have your best interests in mind.

Many – in fact most – firms handle personal injury type claims on a no-win no-fee basis – formally known as a conditional fee arrangement. On this basis, if your case succeeds, you recover the full value of the damages (compensation) you are awarded and do not have to pay your lawyer’s fees as they are recovered from the opposing side.

If your case is unsuccessful, however, as the claimant you are potentially liable for not only your own lawyer’s fees but also those of the opposing side plus expenses. In actual fact, though, this eventuality is managed by way of insurance. However, be sure to clarify the details concerning payment up front – if only for your own peace of mind.

Fears of rising compensation culture drives a lack of compensation for injured workers

Guest PostFor many years, successive governments have been claiming that employers are in the grip of health and safety rules and regulations amidst rising compensation claims. Additional fears have been of a rising health and safety culture, and an increasing litigation culture.

Indeed, last year David Cameron was prompted to highlight the fact that “it is simply much too easy for no-win-no-fee lawyers to encourage trivial claims against businesses, which end up settling out of court because it is too expensive to fight the case,” alongside a statement that Britain’s compensation culture was “spiralling out of control.”

A recent Trades Union Congress (TUC) commissioned report paints a different picture, however. According to the report, the number of people actually receiving compensation for workplace injuries or related actually fell from 219,183 in 2000/01 to 87,655 in 2011/12.

Furthermore, the report, published in health and safety journal Hazard, highlights a more serious matter. The figures show that there in excess of 4,000 deaths per year as a result of work-related chronic bronchitis, emphysema and similar diseases. Only 59 such cases received any form of compensation last year. Last year saw 221,000 cases of work related stress, anxiety, depression and similar, with only 293 being compensated. Other figures show that the chance of getting a payout for an occupational cancer is lower than one in 50.

Overall, less employment related compensation claims are being brought, and less compensation is being paid. The number of such successful claimants has fallen by 60% over the last decade- with nine out of ten injured workers never getting compensation- hardly a rising litigation culture.

For every statement and point of view, there is an alternative viewpoint. Following the publication of the report, the TUC and other commentators find the idea that the government is highlighting a growing compensation culture actually somewhat absurd.

According to the report’s author, Professor Rory O’Neill, occupational health professor at Stirling University and the editor of Hazard, “the Government’s cynical promotion of a compensation culture myth means many workers who are dying in pain are also dying in poverty.”

In support, the TUC has long fought against the notion that there is a spiralling compensation culture in the UK. As far back as 2005, the TUC was critical of the idea that employers’ liability insurance was just another burden on businesses. In the wake of this 2013 report, the TUC is still fighting against this concept; “the true government motive here is to weaken health and safety laws and make it harder to for victims to pursue claims. Unfortunately the end result is likely to be a much higher rate of workplace accidents.”

The above comment from Frances O’Grady, TUC General Secretary, refers to the fact that the coalition cut both the scope and budget of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, and eliminated strict liability claims (where there has been a breach of health and safety legislation, but employer negligence is not proven). The TUC stresses that the overly cautious health and safety culture that the government claims has arisen does not exist; an example cited is that, contrary to popular opinion, few businesses are confronting a rising tide of constant risk assessments. According to TUC figures, in 2012 there were two million UK employees with workplace related injuries- most of which were preventable by taking common sense precautions.

By emphasising the rising compensation culture, the regulations subsequently imposed, and the onerous legal process now involved, makes it harder for genuine claimants to successfully pursue a claim against a genuinely negligent employer. As Jim Sheridan MP plainly summarised, coalition policies are “simply undermining the important issue of health and safety at work,” and the government’s “approach to health and safety encourages [negligent] employers.” Supporting such a withering criticism of government policy is the simple fact that recent changes to legal aid now make it harder to bring a compensation claim in some cases.

In defence of its stance on this matter, a government statement referred to the fact that “the burden of health and safety red tape had become too great,” and that efforts have been made and will be made to ensure that health and safety at work remains a priority, but without excessive paperwork and unnecessary over-caution. Doubtless thinking ahead to 2015’s election, the prospect of an EU referendum, proposals include repatriating some employment and health and safety measures from the EU over time, to make such matters easier more straightforward for businesses.

Whether there is a compensation culture in the UK or not, the recent TUC report does highlight one significant matter. There are many thousands of UK employees who have been injured at work, and who are quite simply not receiving the compensation that is deserved. Whether this is due to government policies, legal technicalities, unscrupulous employers, or other factors is, for those injured, somewhat irrelevant. Essentially, a great many injured employees are unable to get compensation or justice for their workplace injuries; that is the most serious matter here, and needs to be addressed.

Guest article provided on behalf of CompensationClaims.co – specialists in accident and injury compensation claims.