Mr Z was working as a chef for the Defendant where he was often required to lift heavy items such as large sacks of potatoes. Despite requests, he was never provided with appropriate help for assistance for such tasks resulting in an enlarged hernia in the abdomen.
Lifting and carrying tasks in the workplace are normally very dangerous – so read on for what happened in the case of Mr Z.
Standard denial of liability
As is often the case in many claims for personal injury compensation, the other side initially disputed responsibility. The reason that some claims end up taking so long to resolve is because insurers needlessly try and defend claims and then end up settling them anyway. For us and our clients it can be rather frustrating; why put up a fight when you’re just going to pay out in the long run?
They suggested that Mr Z had not made previous reports of problems and also alleged that the incident itself hadn’t been reported. They also suggested that it was not a part of his role to carry such large loads and assistance was available. They seemed to have an answer for everything yet all they disclosed to us as evidence was largely a copy of an unsigned employment contract.
The importance of witness evidence
If the other side is to defend the case we request sight of a specific set of documents as evidence. But before requesting anything further we went on to obtain vital witness evidence from colleagues of our client to assist in our battle for his right to compensation. The witness evidence was great – several colleagues came through for our client confirming that Mr Z was regularly left to work on his own and carry large loads like sacks of potatoes and frozen meats. Witnesses cited short numbers of staff and a lack of care or concern for their wellbeing in general.
With vital witness evidence in our arsenal we communicated our concerns to the insurance company for our client’s employer. We raised the fact that our clients concerns had been raised with management in the past and we disclosed two of the statements that were vital to the case. It also appeared that the replacement for our client when he was off due to the injury also apparently sustained a manual handling injury working in the same capacity.
It took a while for them to properly respond to our correspondence but when they eventually did they requested further information surrounding our clients numerous requests for help and reports of health and safety problems. Despite the statements they were not wanting to go down without a fight – although the lack of evidence when it came to these records was a potential problem.
Moving the case forward
As is common in compensation claims we liaised with a barrister and instructed medical experts to examine our client for a report we could use as vital evidence for the case. However, despite the fact we had witness evidence on file, the issue of having no record or evidence to support our clients previous requests for help and reports of issues remained a concern. The duty is always on the injured victim to prove the claim so without solid proof of this we would have a major hurdle to overcome.
We needed to apply some pressure – so after consulting our client we agreed on what parameters we could look to negotiate a settlement. Mr Z understood that the lack of evidence was an ongoing concern and in a court of law we could run in to difficulties.
But we agreed a split with the other side where they would accept liability on the basis that Mr Z would accept some of the blame was on his part. Once the entire case was prepped, we served everything on to the opponent and we received an initial offer – although we were successful in obtaining an increase and Mr Z was happy to accept £4.750 in final settlement or his case.
It was a case well fought – and although the lack of evidence of our clients reporting of issues and requests for help was a problem, our witness evidence was vital in showing the difference between that the employer says happens in the workplace and what actually happens on the ground level.
