Occupational asthma settlement

pdf version (what's that?)

(by Stuart Gillings of Bolt Burdon solicitors)

A production operative who developed asthma while working in a factory recycling printer ink cartridges has recently settled his claim for compensation against his employer for a substantial sum.

He was exposed to the inks and solvents with which he worked and to the latex in rubber gloves which were issued to him and to his colleagues. Production methods were basic, and included filling the spent cartridges with ink drawn from a bucket with a syringe.

His condition started with a skin rash and progressed to full blown asthma. On one occasion an acute asthma attack at work led to his emergency admission to hospital. His employers failed to take effective action to protect him, and ultimately he left them and claimed compensation for personal injury and financial loss.

LHC provided technical information to Bolt Burdon, the claimant’s solicitors, about the known hazards of the substances to which he was exposed, and this was helpful in the initial stages of investigation of the claim in determining how it should be prepared.

Expert medical evidence confirmed that the cause of the asthma was exposure to latex in the rubber gloves, and that the inks and solvents had an irritant (but not permanent) effect on the claimant’s condition.

The employers disputed all aspects of the claim. One of their main arguments on liability was that the hazards of latex were not sufficiently well known among most employers in 1998 (the initial period of exposure) to make the asthma a foreseeable injury. Ultimately however they paid substantial damages about a month before trial.

Another case on latex exposure, Dugmore v Swansea NHS Trust, was heard by the Court of Appeal in late November 2002 and it was held that Regulation 7(1) of COSHH 1999 imposed an absolute duty on an employer to ensure that exposure to a hazardous substance was prevented or controlled.

top of page

Resources page