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!

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?

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.

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.

Motorsport can be dangerous: time to reconsider pit lane cameramen in F1?

From BBC F1 08/07/13:

Formula 1 must consider introducing measures to protect people working in the pit lane from potential injury, Red Bull team boss Christian Horner says.

A television cameraman was injured by a loose wheel from Mark Webber's Red Bull during the German Grand Prix.

"It's a timely reminder that things can go wrong," Horner said.

"Mechanics have to wear safety gear and helmets. Maybe it's time we looked at some of the other people working in the pit lane having some as well."

The man injured was Paul Allen, who works for F1's official television production company, FOM. He was taken to hospital with a broken collarbone and cracked ribs.

Horner said: "It's a horrible feeling because your initial concern is for that individual.

Watching cameraman Paul Allen being nearly flipped into a somersault in the pit lane by Mark Webber’s fly-away wheel makes for horrific viewing. For me, the fact he was looking the other way filming when the wheel hit him simply makes the incident all the more horrific. Still, as nasty as his injuries were, he escaped very lightly when you consider how it could have ended.

Two F1 stewards were killed in 2000 and 2001 respectively by loose wheels escaping through gaps in the trackside fencing when F1 cars crashed (although, granted, the cars in those incidents were at racing speed rather than the mandatory pit land speed limit of 100kmph). Wheel tethers of increased strength and smaller access gaps in trackside fencing were brought in as a response.

Until last month’s freak accident in which a steward was killed after falling under a tractor hoist at the Canadian Grand Prix, there hadn’t been any further steward fatalities.

Reflecting on Allen’s injury at yesterday’s Grand Prix, it occurred to me that the sub three second pit stops we’re now routinely seeing has made life in the pit lane more dangerous than ever.

Prior to 2010, when in-race refuelling was allowed, pit stops were routinely around 8 – 10 seconds – with the refuelling aspect taking far longer than was needed to remove and replace the car’s 4 tyres. This meant the pit crews could complete the tyre change at their relative leisure.

But now that in-race refuelling has been banned, the faster pit stops have resulted in far more cars being released without their wheels correctly secured as pit crews continue push the envelope to service their cars as quickly as possible.

Horner is undoubtedly right: everyone in the pit lane needs protective clothing at the very least. Pit crews are kitted out with body armour, fire proof suits, helmets and visors. The FOM cameramen, by contrast, are wandering around in exactly the same environment clad only in Dr Martin’s, smart trousers and a short sleeved shirt. That’s horrific no matter how you slice it.

But Allen’s accident raises a broader question in my opinion: should cameramen even be in the pit lane wandering around, with 22 F1 cars shooting in and out and drivers and pit crews pumped full of adrenaline?

That sounds to me very much like a recipe for disaster.

Quite frankly, I’m surprised FOM are willing to risk the potential liability by placing cameramen in the line of fire (so to speak) and without any kind of equipment to protect them.

Whiplash – A matter of fact or fiction

Sponsored Post

Why is there a rise in certain types of personal injury claim?

Guest Post Whiplash claims and industrial illness have been major personal injury talking points of late, and it's vital to know what to do if you wish to make a claim.

In recent weeks, a number of stories have appeared in the mainstream media that focus on certain types of personal injury compensation claims.

Personal injury solicitors have become embroiled in a dispute with insurers over a sharp increase in accident claims, while the recent Queen's Speech could also prompt a flurry of industrial disease claims. We consider these two areas in more detail below:

Whiplash claims
At the start of this year, many GPs reported experiencing a large number of cases in which patients appeared to be seeking treatment for whiplash injuries sustained in road traffic accidents that were either greatly exaggerated, or simply did not exist.

This in turn has reportedly led to an 80% rise in motor insurance in the last five years. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) was drawn into an argument with prominent insurance company Aviva over how whiplash claims should be handled.

Aviva asserted that, with a 32% rise in whiplash compensation claims since 2009, it would be best to let insurers of the 'at fault' driver handle these claims directly. It suggested this would take £1.5 billion off the average annual insurance amount paid by UK drivers.

APIL countered that leaving the case in the hands of representatives of the 'at fault' party would leave the victim in a vulnerable position and pose a serious risk that they would not receive adequate compensation for their injuries.

Its Whiplash Report 2012 was designed to encourage greater cooperation between both parties in these cases, and also sought to disprove the claim from insurers that solicitors are often to blame for encouraging less worthy whiplash claims. The study spoke to 4,000 claimants, and found that 28% of them were pursuing compensation on the advice of an insurer, compared with just 21% who took their cue from a personal injury solicitor.

Both sides have been strongly advised to find an amicable resolution to this debate, in order to ensure only genuine victims are put forward for whiplash compensation.

Industrial illness
At the recent state opening of Parliament, the Queen's Speech covered many areas affecting large portions of the UK population. However, the section that will have provided most interest for personal injury lawyers was the mention of a Mesothelioma Bill.

Mesothelioma is a particularly serious type of cancer that is often caused by exposure to asbestos in the workplace. The government appears to be putting measures in place to assist victims of this industrial disease, with Her Majesty announcing: "Legislation will be introduced to ensure sufferers of a certain asbestos-related cancer receive payments where no liable employer or insurer can be traced."

This will allow sufferers to be compensated for their illness even if they cannot trace the condition back to a specific employer or employer's liability insurer. The plans are set to come into force in 2014, and with any mesothelioma victim diagnosed after 25 July 2012 eligible to claim under the new Bill, it is sure to spark a great deal of interest.

Of course, the Bill still has a long way to go before a final version can be released, with its current wording to be scrutinised by the House of Lords, House of Commons and a government committee before it can be passed into law.

All of these debates and pieces of legislation can be confusing for victims during what is already a stressful time. The best thing to do would be to speak to experienced personal injury solicitors about your claim. They will be able to advise you on the likely success of your case, and provide professional support throughout the process to secure you the appropriate compensation.

Head and Brain Injuries

Sponsored Post

Are you worried about claiming against your employer for an accident at work?

Guest PostSome people feel uneasy about claiming for an accident at work. But, if you are injured as a result of negligence by your employer, it’s important to be aware of the facts.

Suffering an injury is traumatic enough, but coupled with the worry of the financial implications around loss of earnings and possible costs for medical treatment, an accident at work can be very stressful.

Taking action after experiencing an accident at work often worries people as they think it will impact on their job security, however, your employer has a duty of care toward you under the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act. This means that they have a legal obligation which requires them to adhere to standards of care while you’re at work.

If you’re going to claim, evidence is key. Your employer should have an accident book to record anything that’s happened and seeking medical advice after your accident - something you’re entitled to do even if it’s not a severe injury - will mean it’s officially recorded. You can also register the accident as an industrial injury with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

If the cause of your injury was the fault of another employee, your employer is still responsible. Vicarious liability means that your employer is accountable for the actions of its employees, so there is no need to worry that you’re not eligible to make a claim in these circumstances.

Another concern you may have is putting your company out of pocket. Your employer will have liability insurance and if you claim against it, it’s dealt with by its insurance company. This means that the money doesn’t directly come from your employer; it’s the insurer that pays any compensation.

Accidents at work should be taken seriously. Some injuries can result in loss of life. If you don’t take any action, then employers could continue to be negligent to you and others in your workplace.

Finally, it’s understandable that you may be worried about being dismissed for making a claim against your employer. While there is no guarantee that you won’t be, it’s worth remembering that it is illegal for your employer to discharge you for making a claim for an accident at work.

Being armed with the facts will hopefully take some of the worry out of making a claim against your employer. If you’ve suffered an accident at work, taking legal advice is recommended. When claiming for accident at work be sure to use a solicitor that specialises in personal injury and has a good success rate of winning compensation on behalf of their clients.

Parliamentary Privilege: Frivolous Personal Injury Claims

Frivolous? Well, how else would you describe someone filing a claim for tripping over their umbrella, ripping their crotch bending over to plug in a computer or getting their glasses bent when they failed to open a door before trying to walk through it.

Ah yes – stupid. That’s the word I was looking for. ;-)

From the Telegraph 22/04/13:

The House of Commons paid £95 to an employee who tripped on an umbrella and £90 to another who ripped their trousers as part of more than £40,000 handed out in compensation over five years.

Between January 2008 and January 2013 employees have received a total of £44,609.49 in compensation, a Freedom of Information request has revealed.

"Personal injury compensation" for "slips, trips and falls" accounts for £42,550 and the rest relates to property damage.

You’ve gotta watch out for those slips and trips. Personally, I’d remove all stairs, cushion all doors and install high grip flooring throughout parliamentary premises. MPs have a proven track record of having difficulty with anything which doesn’t involve being chauffeured around whilst sat on their fat behinds.

This property damage includes £435.50 for five "ripped suit jackets" and £688.80 for an incident in March 2012 when a "security road blocker rose up under the rear of a car while waiting for the preceding vehicle to exit through gates".

Crikey. Let’s just be thankful that a skirt-wearing female wasn’t stood over that bollard before it rose to the occasion. A damaged [car] undercarriage seems a small price to pay by comparison.

An employee who incurred "damage to glasses due to a problem with door" was awarded £240 and £90 as handed out for "trousers ripped whilst connecting IT equipment under the table".

I sincerely hope the problem with the door wasn’t the person failing to open it before trying to walk through. More to the point, how much does a tailor charge to sew up a crotch? Actually, when you put it that way, £90 sounds quite reasonable.

Matthew Sinclair, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance said: "It is deeply depressing that the compensation culture has even found its way into the House of Commons.

"It's frankly ludicrous that taxpayers are footing the bill for when someone snags their clothing in Parliament.

Now, hold hard, Matthew. A ripped crotch is a ripped crotch and someone’s got to foot the bill. If I was the employee who’d trousers had split when plugging in a computer, I would have tried to bring an action against the House of Commons for the negligence of their canteen staff serving such highly calorific food.

A spokesperson added: "The House of Commons, like the Civil Service, self-insures for employers' and public liability.

The exemption from holding employers' liability insurance comes from the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969.

Does the UK suffer from a compensation culture?

Guest Post

Hailed by many as a direct response to a growing compensation culture in the UK, the Jackson reforms introduced on the 1 of April brought in a number of new pieces of legislation intended to prevent Britain from becoming a “claim happy” nation. In some quarters it has been suggested that the reforms come too late or don’t go far enough to protect those unfortunate people who are targeted by “unmeritorious claims”, while figures such as Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, have suggested that compensation culture is in fact a myth propagated by the media.

What all concerned are keen to point out, however, is that these changes within the legal system are not intended to clamp down on genuine claims made by those badly affected by an accident. Personal injuries can be serious issues and those organisations built around helping claimants to push their cases through the small claims courts are wrong to be universally labelled as ambulance chasers. As specialists in road traffic accidents (RTAs), Winn Solicitors come across one of the most stigmatised of them all – the whiplash claim. But what is interesting to note, is that the facts paint a very different picture to the public perception, as was seen when the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers took a closer look at the statistics. Their finding showed that 40% of people suffering from whiplash don’t claim as a result of a whiplash injury, even though one in five people suffering from whiplash suffer from the injury for more than a year. With symptoms varying from migraines and dizziness, to neck pain, blurred vision and even depression, it is important that accident victims have access to the right level of care – whether it be physiotherapy, gym-based rehabilitation or acupuncture. And they shouldn’t be made to feel guilty about being compensated for the cost of any necessary treatments.

Another important distinction to be made between the road traffic accidents dealt with by Winn Solicitors is that an accident on the road more often than not incurs a significant cost. Aside from your home, your car is probably the most expensive purchase you’ll make, so being shunted from behind can have implications for both your insurance premiums, excesses and no claims discounts, while the inability to commute can cause significant financial problems.

In short, the cost of a road traffic accident is a hit to the pocket and the dangers of using heavy and high-powered motor vehicles are part of the reason why all motorists must insure their cars by law in the UK. This law means that if you find yourself hit by another motorist you are able to recoup the cost of repairs, replacement vehicles, injuries and other associated costs. By calling Winns before your insurers, you can make sure you safeguard your premium, no claims and excess, too.

If you’ve had a crash in the last three years and want to find out if you are eligible to make a legitimate claim, don’t feel that you are part of a culture. Call Winn Solicitors or click here and we’ll assess your case and help you to claim full and fair compensation for your non-fault accident.

PC cops it over curb

From the Huffington Post 31/03/13:

A petrol station owner who phoned police when he thought he was being burgled is being sued by one of the attending officers because she tripped on a kerb.

Steve Jones called police last August when the alarm protecting his garage forecourt went off around midnight.

PC Kelly Jones, 33, answered the call during which she tripped on a six-inch kerb.

The garage owner told the Mirror: "I thought nothing of it, other than she must have been a bit embarrassed – and I helped her up."

The officer claims she injured her wrist and leg in the fall […] but was able to continue the search of the premises.

PC Jones is now suing him for thousands of pounds for "unnecessary risk of injury" as she was not warned about the kerb and it was insufficiently lit.

Quite right too. Curbs can be hazardous.

In other news, one of Ms Jones’ colleagues is suing the local council, seeking damages for pain and suffering after they stubbed their toe on a step when chasing after a suspect.

After all, if a Tesco delivery driver can go A over T and sue the property owner, why not a copper?

Living with sight loss

Guest PostExperiencing sight loss can be painful, traumatic and sometimes life changing to those who suffer it. Major injuries and illnesses can lead to a complete loss of eyesight. Deep puncture wounds from accidents, serious chemical burns, and major trauma to the eye socket area can result in vision loss. There are also a range of eye conditions which can lead to the loss of eyesight including glaucoma, cataracts, macular degeneration and detached retinas.

For those who have been sighted and lose their vision, the transition can be particularly difficult to deal with. Coming to terms with your blindness and the reality of never being g able to see the things or people you love the most is not an easy task to face.

Blindness also changes a sufferer’s everyday life significantly. Here are some of the ways how loss of sight changes how people interact with others and the world around them.

Braille
Learning a completely new way to read is a challenge for those who lose their sight. However, the increasingly widespread use of Braille means that the blind are able to read books and signs if they choose to learn the writing system.

In recent years more blind people are turning to electronic devices that have screen reading technology to communicate as they are more portable and allow easier interaction between themselves and other people.

Life at home
Daily life around the home is changed by blindness. It is a condition that causes difficulty with almost every aspect of life, especially everyday tasks such as cooking, dressing, shopping and negotiating open spaces. Changes are often made to furniture and the layout of a home to reduce the chance of walking into objects or suffering injuries from falls.

The risk of physical and social isolation is greater for people who are blind or partially sighted as it can be difficult to get out and make friends. Blindness can prove to be expensive for some as the cost of special equipment can be high.

Public Life
Interactions with the rest of society change as a result of being blind or partially sighted. The vast majority of blind people are not able to drive which leaves them reliant on public transport. Depending on where they live, this can be anything from good to inadequate. Crowded public places are difficult to navigate and previously simple tasks like withdrawing money from a cash machine are tricky without voice technology or personal assistance for blind users.

There are several ways in which blind and partially sighted people cope with their condition. Guide dogs are trained to safely lead their owner around the community, keeping them safe when crossing roads and allowing them to keep active. Others use a white cane to guide them as they walk, swinging it to help find objects and move around them.

Some blind people choose to have a volunteer guide them around, especially if they are allergic to dogs. As well as making sure they avoid obstacles and other dangers, the volunteer guide can help conduct tasks such as food shopping, banking and generally assist in day to day life.

Adjusting to blindness can be a very emotional and difficult experience. It is easy to become isolated and to stop doing the things that the person enjoyed before suffering from sight loss. Negative thoughts regarding the disability can take hold, such as the frustration of not being able to see loved ones or from the perceived loss of independence.

Loss of eye sight inevitably leads to major adjustments in an individual’s life. However, with the right help and support, it is more than possible to meet these challenges and adapt to blindness.

Grieves personal injury solicitors deal with serious injury claims including cases of eye damage and loss of sight. If you think you have the grounds to make a loss of sight claim contact Grieves today.

Drunk driver car accident: How to claim

Sponsored Post

If you have been involved in an accident with a drunk driver, a claim maybe brought against the driver. If the driver has a valid motor insurance policy, the insurer will pay compensation if can be proven that the drunk driver acted negligently and your injuries resulted from their actions.

If, however, the driver is uninsured or left the scene of the accident and cannot be traced, a claim may be brought against the Motor Insurance Bureau.

The Motor Insurance Bureau provides a fund, as a point of last resort, for personal injury claims which occur on a road or public place in accordance with the provisions of Road Traffic Act 1988. Under these provisions, it is an offence for an individual to be in charge of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. As a result, claims for personal injury caused as a result of an accident with a drunk driver will fail under such provisions.

How do I make a claim?
A claim for compensation for personal injury must be brought within 3 years of the date of the accident.

The claim can be brought against the driver and their insurance company or, if these details are unknown, then the claim can be brought against the Motor Insurance Bureau.

If you wish to make a claim to the Motor Insurance Bureau this can be done personally by completing the online form or by instructing a personal injury solicitor.

This article was written by Andrew Fullam on behalf of Claims National a road traffic accident compensation claim specialist.