Reeves,

I am not aware of an employer being sued in the circumstances you describe. There is however case law on a pregnant woman successfully claiming unfair dismissal as a result of her employer failing to take adequate precautions to protect her and her baby from the effects of hazardous substances.

I can't recall the name of the case but I will have a look for it. Alternatively, it might be available on Bailii.

Regards.

DJ

Thank djupnorth - would be a perfect example to use.

Ian, I run a risk management consultancy business and work across all industries - a fair number of our clients are in logistics in way of an explanation for my wandering off my specified group.

I wasnt strictly speaking correct saying that our client is a GP's surgery as it felt too much detail to post - they are actaully a not for profit business that operates an out of hours doctors practise so dont fall under a PCT and as such and dont have the support functions below. All the doctors are self employed members of the group and we have not been contracted in to look at these (glad really as thats a mine field). The executive board is made up of six GP's who are still in practise and the majority of the companies policies etc are taken from their surgeries as you would imagine. We personally feel that this particular one needs a more through review in light of the concerns below. They are not overly keen to look at a revision as it would set a precident to all the GP members. I want a bit of motivation for them.

Claire is spot on (no pun intended) with her answer as most girls are immunised against the problem or have had the disease when young which has the same effect. It is extremely unlikely that a pregnant woman would suffer a miscarriage if they did contract GM, the problem is that the disease affects the unborn baby itself and creates health problems.
Take care
John C

Claire, I have a constant stream of cases through my office, where A caught something nasty from B. It's a causal link that should be established, and by exclusion of other possibilities and sound molecular typing that forms the basis of epidemiological study the burden of proof can generally be satisfied.

Reeves, if they are operating a sweetshop different rules will apply, but if they are providing ANY healthcare services in the UK then the CQC will demand registration and they will be subject to additional inspection and more general supervision by the relevant Public Health authorities. Though this is, in some part, moving from the PCTs to LAs, the responsibility exists. That makes it possible also to tap into this source of expertise.