APIL Guide to Occupational Illness ClaimsFROM £59.00
Provides a convenient one stop source of reference for occupational illness claims
* Call 0330 161 1234 to find out more about online services
- an outline of the myriad statutory provisions which regulate this area and the effective date of those provisions, helping you to identify which provision was in force at the date of exposure
- the nature and medical background to common occupational illnesses
- an explanation of the problems associated with complicated expert evidence
- practical advice on pursuing and valuing the claim, the procedure for restoring companies to the register, etc
- expertly drafted precedents, draft schedules of damages and model pleadings
10% discount for APIL Members, to take advantage of this offer please call Customer Services on +44 (0)330 161 1234.
- General considerations
- Common Law
- Asbestos related illnesses
- Noise related conditions
- Work-Related Upper Limb Disorders
- Vibration White Finger
- Stress Claims
- General Statutory Framework
- Regulations with Specific Application
- Pre-Action Protocol
- Evidential issues
- General Damages
- Special Damages
- Pre-Action Protocol
- Selected Regs
"plenty of material that will give considerable assistance and comfort to practitioners involved in the day-to-day running of occupational illness claims"New Law Journal
for the full review click here
"Applying some well settled principles to the facts founf....Christopher Goddard has produced and excellent new edition of his work...an authoritative information source for PI work on occupational illness"
Phillip Taylor MBE and Elizabeth Taylor of Richmond Green Chambers
Solicitor and Managing Partner, Unity Law
all of 9 Gough Square Chambers
Stress is now the second most commonly reported work-related illness. The most recent data available from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is that in 2009/2010 9.8 million working days were lost due to stress and the costs to society are about £4 billion per year. The issue of stress at work has, unsurprisingly, been receiving increasing attention from the courts and the government as its impact is felt on the workforce and productivity. A consensus is slowly emerging as to the definition of stress, what might cause it and ways to reduce it.
The starting point in defining stress is in making the distinction between pressure and stress. As the HSE in its guidance booklet Stress at Work (1995) put it:
'There is no such thing as a pressure-free job. Every job brings its own set of tasks, responsibilities and day-to-day problems, and the pressures and demands these place on us are an unavoidable part of working life. We are, after all, paid to work and to work hard, and to accept the reasonable pressures which go with that.’
Stress arises when a person experiences too much pressure and is unable to cope. In the same guidance booklet, the HSE defined stress as: ‘the reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed upon them. It arises when they worry that they can’t cope. It can involve both physical and behavioural effects, but these are usually short-lived and cause no lasting harm; when the pressures recede, there is a quick return to normal’. The most recent definition on the HSE website is as follows: ‘By the term work-related stress we mean the process that arises where work demands of various types and combinations exceed the person’s capacity and capability to cope.’
Stress is therefore a reaction, not an illness in itself. It is when stress results in illness that the possibility of an actionable claim arises. Its effects can be shown in physical disorders, such as ulcers, heart disease or hypertension and in psychiatric disorders, such as anxiety and depression. While there should be no distinction in principle to the approach to be taken to injury caused by stress at work, whether physical or psychiatric, most occupational stress claims concern psychiatric illness.
When considering the point at which stress becomes a psychiatric illness, as the Court of Appeal recognised in the leading case of Sutherland v Hatton, the dividing line between a ‘normal but unpleasant state of mind or emotion and a recognised psychiatric disorder’ is itself not easy to draw. Generally, psychiatric illnesses cannot be seen, scanned or measured physically (although currently research is being carried out into measuring small chemical changes, and the future may hold greater certainty). What can be seen are the effects of psychiatric illness. Psychiatrists cannot presuppose a standard or normal state of mental health. The best that can be achieved is some average standard of functioning. A person falling outside that standard can then be said to be suffering from a psychiatric condition. Certain criteria are now recognised by the psychiatric profession: the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder; the DSM-IV (1994); and the World Health Organisation’s ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders (1992). In
short, these provide checklists of symptoms that help to define psychiatric conditions. The controversy over the definitions in the forthcoming DSM-V – expected in 2013 – suggests that agreement about the classification of mental disorders and their diagnostic criteria is far from settled.
Have a question about this product? Please get in touch by completing the boxes below.
You May Also Like
Offers detailed and practical advice on evidential matters
Substantially revised, updated and expanded to help you to construct a claim for damages