Posted By Ellen E Bunting
I have just learned that one of our employees who had an accident two years ago is about to submit a claim for compensation.

The accident (which happened in Aug 2005)involved a fall from height and resulted in a fairly bad injury to the ankle. The employee was in hospital for a while and off work for a total of about 7 months. However he had returned to work and was interviewed regarding his health and ability to work. The only stipulation that was made was that he was not to carry out any work at height at all, even two feet off the ground as he still had trouble with his ankle.

The employee intends to continue working but feels that he must lodge the claim. The confusing thing for me is that he says that neither of us (him or the company) were at fault and it was just an accident. What is the purpose of his claim then, surely when we go to a court of law we are they to ascertain the facts of the case and ensure that the employer had done everything reasonably practicable to prevent the accident. I am very confident that we did and therefore not worried about defending the case.

I was wondering if any of you had come across any cases similar to this and if so what was the outcome.

Obviously this is just a snapshot of the case but any advice would be appreciated.

Posted By Ellen E Bunting
The employee received full pay for six months and then half pay for the remainder of the time. With regards to old age the employee is approaching 60 and I suppose looking to secure his retirement years. However I would assume that when considering any amount of compensation the judge would take into consideration the number of years of his working life he has left. I would also think that this could take a couple of years to come to court and by that time he will only have a few left.

The employee is a supervisor, with a wealth of knowledge, experience, and training in the area of working at height and in fact he has been a material witness in another case about 7 years ago when he vigorously defended the company against the claimant, so I suppose he knows what lies ahead.

I can understand him claiming for the pain and suffering but I know when the facts are presented our insurers and representation will tear him to shreads as the investigation pointed to human error, his own mistake and negligence.

Regards


Ellen

Posted By Raymond Rapp
I agree with most of the previous advice, following an accident at work the employee is entitled to make a claim.

The company insurance liability would cover the cost of any compensation - that is what it has been designed to do.

Ray

Posted By D H
"What is the purpose of his claim then, surely when we go to a court of law we are they to ascertain the facts of the case and ensure that the employer had done everything reasonably practicable to prevent the accident. I am very confident that we did and therefore not worried about defending the case".

Hi - I would not be as confident as you sound about what happens in court.
Remember the judge is the one who is going to decide if you did everything "reasonably practicable".
Also remember health and safety legislation leans heavily on the side of the employee.
As you admit, the IP is still suffering because of the accident and as has also been said age is a problem. Arthritis comes naturally to some, but it seems to target previous injury sites - ( I am speaking from experience here!).
Again as has already been stated, that's what you pay insurance for. So get it over with.

Dave

Posted By Glyn Atkinson
Don't forget that if the claimant is stating that he is not 100% fully fit from the effects of this injury two years ago, he may be also claiming for some loss of personal enjoyment of life hobby or activity - eg, if he plays crown green bowls and struggles to get down to deliver jack or ball, or if he enjoyed fell walking at the weekend as a hobby?

An amount would be based as to the standard of anyone's playing as their hobby - crown green bowling could be played as a hobby activity during retirement for example.

It would be more if the claimant plays at some form of local representative level and now cannot continue at that class of play.

These type of claims can always be substantiated by club membership or newspaper reports of matches etc, and can often be a heavy part of a claim, even if workplaces have been risk assessed post accident and remedial measures put into place.

Just one more scenario to think about !

Posted By Ellen E Bunting
Thanks for the response, The reason for the post was to get feedback from people who had experienced similar situations. The last couple of posts have been very helpful, thank you.

EEB