Feedback 2007
Set out below is a small selection of some of the feedback received during 2007.
Helen Pegg was employed by an agency in Bedfordshire, and she was contracted to work for a delivery firm.
During the approach to Christmas, she found herself undertaking increasingly heavy deliveries. These included crates of wine and flatpack furniture.
She experienced increasing backpain, and she told her employers. However they ignored her concerns.
Eventually one morning in the course of a delivery, Ms Pegg experienced the sudden onset of severe back pain. She was unable to continue working.
A personal injury claim was made against her employers, and their insurers admitted liability.
There then followed a long period of medical investigations and treatment. Once these were complete, an independent medical report was obtained in support of the claim. This confirmed that the injury was caused by Ms Pegg's work.
The opposing insurers then commissioned a medical report of their own. The orthopaedic surgeon they selected has the unique distinction of only ever being instructed by insurers, with the sole purpose of undermining compensation claims. Predictably his report attributed the injury to a variety of extraneous factors. His overall conclusion was that Ms Pegg's work was "irrelevant" in causing the injury.
Litigation was started, and the defendants' lawyers advanced settlement proposals shortly thereafter. Notwithstanding the comments made by their own medical expert, the defendants' offer was surprisingly reasonable, and settlement was concluded on that basis.
To read Ms Pegg's feedback, please click here
Linda Prichard worked at a factory undertaking injection mouldings for the automotive industry in Birmingham.
As part of the manufacturing process, toxic fumes were emitted.
The factory had failed to arrange a suitable ventilation or extraction system. Furthermore there was no warning about the risk of inhaling the fumes.
As a direct result of her working conditions, Mrs Prichard developed asthma. After one sudden attack, she had to be rushed to hospital by ambulance.
Did the company apologise? Did they show remorse? Not a bit of it. Mrs Prichard received a letter from them, terminating her employment because of her "ongoing health concerns".
A compensation claim was made against her employers, and their insurers rapidly conceded liability.
Supporting medical evidence was obtained from an independent chest physician. Thereafter a reasonable out of court settlement was negotiated.
To read Mrs Pritchard's feedback, please click here
Carl Ashton was employed by a construction firm in the West Midlands.
On the day of the accident, he and his small team were working on the roof of a telephone exchange in Reading. By way of background, new telecommunications equipment was being installed, reflecting the increased use by the public of mobile phones.
The telephone exchange had a flat roof. Roughly 3 feet above the roof was a grating. Mounted on the grating were various boxes of telecommunications equipment. The new equipment had to be installed as swiftly as possible, and various different companies were involved.
While undertaking his designated duties, Mr Ashton fell through a hole in the grating, caused by the removal of one of the sections. As a result he suffered an ankle injury.
The claim was complicated, because so many different parties were involved. Firstly there were the owners of the telephone exchange. Secondly the grating was owned by a separate company. Thirdly the works were being undertaken on behalf of a major mobile phone company. Fourthly the company that had removed part of the grating was clearly a possible defendant. Fifthly there were the employers, although they had no control over what happened on site.
Mr Ashton was referred to our practice by the Citizens Advice Bureau, after his previous solicitors in Birmingham had "thrown in the towel". They had advised him that they had been unable to obtain compensation, and they intended to close their file.
The difficulty was that the 3-year limitation period was due to expire in about a fortnight.
Protective proceedings were issued. Letters before action were sent out to all the potential defendants. The employers had previously ignored the claim, and accordingly an application was issued at Birmingham County Court for pre-action disclosure. Strangely, the employers ignored the court hearing as well, resulting in substantial legal costs being awarded against them.
Upon receipt of the engrossed order, the employers involved their solicitors. They indicated willingness to discuss settlement, before the legal costs escalated further.
Sensible settlement negotiations took place shortly thereafter, resulting in the matter being finalised prior to service of the Defence.
To read Mr Ashton's feedback, please click here
Elaine Walker was employed as an export consultant near Bournemouth.
The office where she worked had recently been refurbished. Unfortunately a power socket on the floor had been left sticking up. Ms Walker tripped over this, and as a result she injured her knee.
She notified her employers about the accident. They in turn notified their insurers. The insurance company in question then obtained a medical report. The medical expert advised that further tests were required. After that he wanted to report further.
What then followed was unethical, to say the least. Instead of advising Ms Walker that she ought to obtain independent legal advice, the insurance company tried to negotiate a final settlement with her on a direct basis. This was quite irrespective of the need to obtain further medical evidence. Furthermore the offer that the insurers put forward was, frankly, ludicrously low.
Ms Walker became suspicious. She instructed this practice. We then immediately wrote to the insurance company, forbidding them from making any further direct contact with the client. This naturally set the tone for subsequent communications with the insurers.
The medical expert then reported further. He was surprisingly sympathetic to the claim. More so in fact than the insurers probably intended. The insurers then sent the medical expert a long and extremely prejudicial letter, inviting him to agree that the ongoing knee pain was related to a variety of external factors.
Although I cannot prove this, it certainly seemed as if the insurers were intent upon victimising my client.
Of course I must not reveal the identity of the insurers in question. However they frequently proclaim that they will "quote you happy".
Well, the insurers did not create much happiness in this case, so county court proceedings were issued without further ado. The insurers then instructed their solicitors.
After protracted negotiations, settlement was reached at nearly 4 times the original offer.
Boris Kremer, UK personal injury lawyer