Work Related Repetitive Strain Injury - effect on my record, compensation etc?

[blueskies1]

Re: Repetitive Strain Injury - sue employer?

I am the original poster that was looking for advice on RSI (not a run down on the state of the country). I'm going to try and stay calm and polite here even though a lot of these posts have p****d me off.

People suggesting I don't appreciate what I have etc. and as one poster put it 'should suffer consequences in order to pay bills'. You wouldn't be writing that if you lost all feeling in your arm, your hand went purple and you couldn't even turn on a light switch or hold a pen. Oh and you were so dizzy and weak, you couldn't leave the house. Don't be quick to judge.
And as for the taking correct steps at work, I come in at 10am, take a break at 11am and go on lunch at 12.30, my work is very physical, 70 per cent physical and 30 per cent computer use. I get up from my desk every 20 minutes. I'm not a couch potato either, but RSI can still happen.
Thanks to Yeager for his/her supportive comments. Of course ergonomics exists, it's been around for a while, anyone that's not aware of that is living in the Dark Ages.

 

[gearoid]

Re: Repetitive Strain Injury - sue employer?

..

 

[becky]

Re: Repetitive Strain Injury - sue employer?

The employer is taking the necessary steps by sending you to the Chief Medical Officer who will then advise them of your fitness to work or not. If you have to be re assigned this should have no bearing on your work record.

I'm working in the HSE for 20 years and have to say I never heard of "Work Station assessors". Thank God they haven't been to my office which is known as the box room of the department (full of junk).

 

[NicolaM]

Re: Repetitive Strain Injury - sue employer?

I'm going to try and stay calm and polite here even though a lot of these posts have p****d me off.

Unfortunately when you post on the internet, you are not always going to get opinions that you like, or agree with.

It seems to me that there have been a lot of very useful posts there, even if they have not been saying what you want to hear.

Nicola

Ps I can see why Gearoid decided not to contribute again

 

[Complainer]

Re: Repetitive Strain Injury - sue employer?

It is rather sad to see the bias in responses, with the mad rush to blame the OP in ignorance of the full circumstances. Certainly, the employer bears certain moral and legal responsibilities, including provision of workstation assessments, appropriate equipment and training to employees.

OP - I would suggest that you engage your union and your H&S representative regarding the glaring gaps in provision of H&S requirements. In relation to your own case, you may well need to engage specialist medical advice.

 

[NicolaM]

Re: Repetitive Strain Injury - sue employer?

Title= Repeditive strain injury-sue employer?

A friend suggested getting compensation. Any advice appreciated.

Complainer, I am not surprised in any bias in responses, given the title (posted by the OP) of this thread, and the suggestion of a 'friend' to get compensation.
If the compensation issue had not been on the OP's mind*, I do not think they would have posted the query in the way they did.

Nicola

* I do note that he/she said further on that they had no interest in suing, but I'm not sure why the initial post would have been re suing if this were not the case

 

[Complainer]

Re: Repetitive Strain Injury - sue employer?

* I do note that he/she said further on that they had no interest in suing, but I'm not sure why the initial post would have been re suing if this were not the case

Presumably the OP felt obliged to back down because of the intimidating, bullying and harranging (sp?) nature of many of the responses.

 

[NicolaM]

Re: Repetitive Strain Injury - sue employer?

Complainer, OP posted that 4 posts in.

There were three replies prior to that, the main one being Momah's, which I would have thought was helpful, and I do know how it could possibly be described as intimidating, bullying, or harranging (sorry, I can't spell that either!).

What is wrong with people pointing out that there is an element of personal responsibility involved in this?
How could that be perceived as bullying?

Nicola

 

[Complainer]

Re: Repetitive Strain Injury - sue employer?

What is wrong with people pointing out that there is an element of personal responsibility involved in this?
How could that be perceived as bullying?

Because they didn't point out the 'element of personal responsibility'. They rushed to blame the OP and evade any responsibility on the part of the employer in a rush of group-think.

The evidence is that sueing slows/delays the recovery process.

I'd be very interested in seeing this evidence.

 

[ajapale]

Re: Repetitive Strain Injury - sue employer?

Hi,
I was diagnosed by a doctor and a physiotherapist as having RSI due to my daily tasks at work.

I've been out of work for three weeks. I was asked this week to attend the Chief Medical Officer, I assume to be assessed as to whether I can continue to work in my section.

Does anyone have any experience of this injury?

Worried about the long term effects of this on my work record.

A friend suggested getting compensation.

Any advice appreciated.

Thanks

This interesting thread is beginning to drift a little.

Would posters refoucus on the OP's original question and continue to abide by the posting guidelines.

Thanks,
aj
moderator

 

[BoscoTalking]

Re: Repetitive Strain Injury - sue employer?

Are you seriously suggesting that people need to be trained how to sit in a chair and that organisations (this could be a small business) should employ people to make sure that people are sitting in their chairs properly?when will people take responsibility for their own actions?

“a programme of regular work station assessments”, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, I’ve heard it all now!

Sorry but its more than a suggestion - its the law.

 

[stevo]

Re: Repetitive Strain Injury - sue employer?

Are you seriously suggesting that people need to be trained how to sit in a chair and that organisations (this could be a small business) should employ people to make sure that people are sitting in their chairs properly?
Unless the OP is 8 and working in a sweat shop with other 8 year olds then they should, at this stage of their life, have the wit to draw the conclusion that “oh, my neck hurts because of the way I am sitting; maybe I should sit differently”.
Bloody hell, when will people take responsibility for their own actions?

“a programme of regular work station assessments”, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, I’ve heard it all now!

I'm not seriously suggesting anything. The law is seriously suggesting it.

Chceck out the Display Screen Equipment Regulations 2007
[broken link removed]

I fully agree with you - people SHOULD take responsibility for their own actions. But, if you are an employer, you will also be aware that employers have a duty of care to their employees, and so quite often certain measures have to be taken to help them to protect their health and safety.

and, no, of course an organisation doesn't have to "employ people to make sure that people are sitting in their chairs properly?". It's quite simple to have one WS assessor trained up for X number of employees - then, as an additional part of their "normal" job, they could conduct a WS assessment on either a yearly basis, or whenever there is a new hire, or whenever there is a change in conditions (e.g. change of offices) etc etc... whatever the organisation deems to be sufficient to ensure safe conditions at work. If this is a small organisation with maybe 10 employees, a yearly schedule of WSA would work out at only 10 employees x20mins per assessment = 3hr 20mins of someones time every year. The money spent on paying someone to spend 3.3 hours per year on WSA might go a long way towards firstly protecting employees from RSI , and secondly in the event of being sued it would demonstrate that the "duty of care" had been taken seriously and might make the difference between losing and winning the case.

I gave my opinion above based on the preparation I had to do to defend an RSI claim a few years ago. Perhaps you wouldn't be so derogatory towards the information above if you were familiar with employment law, H&S laws and the importance of ergonomics in the workplace.

Stevo's Wife.

 

[ajapale]

Complainer, NicolaM, Momah.

Your interesting contributions have been split off here:
Does the process of litigation itself encourage disability and compromise recovery?

Please leave this thread to discuss the particular questions raised by the OP.

aj
moderator

 

[Purple]

Steveo’s wife, if a work station assessment (making sure people are sitting at their desk properly) is carried out and the recipient of said assessment refuses to sit at their desk “properly” because they have had bugger all problems for the last 20 years what sanction should be taken against that employee?

If an employee experiences an injury or discomfort because of how they are working their employer should facilitate them in any reasonable way. In the case of the OP they should be getting paid while out and their employer should be covering medical costs.
In my organisation, and the broader group of companies (around 120 people) we have no workstation assessors and there have been no fatalities so far… if we implemented a programme I have no doubt that most of those who work at desks would tell them to bugger off and let them get on with their days work.

 

[stevo]

we have no workstation assessors and there have been no fatalities so far…

And of course there are no fatalities yet in your organisation from bad posture at PCs. Not for a moment suggesting that there would have been. But, just because there have been no injuries yet, and neither have there been any legal cases yet arising from such injuries is not to say that there will never be such situations in your organisation.
The advice from HSA, and from any employment law advisors would be that putting a programme of WSA in place would help to prevent such injuries, and provide a defence against such claims.

if we implemented a programme I have no doubt that most of those who work at desks would tell them to bugger off and let them get on with their days work.

It is of course at an employee's discretion if they want to avail of the assessment, or to tell the assessor to bugger off... their choice. But, if this is recorded, and the same employee gets injured (e.g. RSI) and tries to sue the employer, the fact that they were offered an assessment and declined to avail of it would go a long way towards getting their case thrown out of court.

if a work station assessment (making sure people are sitting at their desk properly) is carried out and the recipient of said assessment refuses to sit at their desk “properly” because they have had bugger all problems for the last 20 years what sanction should be taken against that employee?

Likewise, if they are given all the good advice regarding safe posture etc and they subsequently chose to ignore all the advice, then I doubt any organisation will take sanctions against them. But, those employees can never claim in the future that they did not know how to sit correctly, or that they did not know the importance of taking regular breaks.

You come across as very sceptical about the whole concept of Work Station Assessments Purple. Maybe if you had been through a legal case and saw all the preparation and information that was required to defend such a claim you would realise how seriously it is taken under the eyes of the law.

Steveo's Wife

 

[Purple]

You come across as very sceptical about the whole concept of Work Station Assessments Purple. Maybe if you had been through a legal case and saw all the preparation and information that was required to defend such a claim you would realise how seriously it is taken under the eyes of the law.

Steveo's Wife

Yes, I am very cynical about it. My attitude is that you empower your employees and you listen to them. If someone doesn't like their mouse, chair etc they just order a new one. If they were having health problems due to the work they do then we'd talk about it and sort it out (it hasn’t happened but that’s what we’d do). If anyone sees anyone else doing anything that isn't good for them then they talk to them about it.
The business has been in operation for decades and we've never been sued. We have had minor work deleted injuries but as we are lucky enough to have an empowered and motivated workforce. If there’s a problem we treat each other like adults and agree a fair solution that everyone is happy with.

It's simple; everyone treats everyone else with respect. That way the organisation gets the best out of its most important resource and people go home feeling satisfied because they matter. So workstation assessments aren’t high on the agenda because if anyone wants to change their workstation they just change it.

Oh and cynically looking for ways to mitigate our risk of litigation and dressing it up as health and safety isn’t what we’re about. If someone got injured at work the priority would be to make them better not screw them over.

 

[stevo]

Purple - At the beginning of this thread you were completely unfamiliar with the concept of work station assessments, and seemed also to be completely unfamiliar with employment law and indeed H&S legislation... now, a few days later, you seek to imply that you and your business chose not to implement the safety measures that you are required to do by law due to having an "empowered" workforce, and not due to ignorance of the law. Strange that.

And, for some reason, it comforts you to believe that the organisations who are cognizant of their duty of care to their employees , and who also comply with legislation, are really just pretending to care and really just out to prevent law suits.

Is it cynical to offer manual handling training to all employees who need it?
(Sure, they are not 8... they know how to lift a few boxes!)
Is it cynical to carry out risk assessments of the work environment?
(Sure, if there's a problem in the area won't someone point it out? )
Is it cynical to offer free eye tests at regular intervals to employees who require it under legislation?
(Sure, if someone has sore eyes, won't they just tell us about it? )

In your eyes, yes, the above would all be cynical acts of self preservation by the employer. But, to any enlightened and knowledgeable employers, the above are basic requirements to ensure compliance with the law.

Bottom line, it doesn't put me up, down or sideways what you or your organisation do. But, stating that you and your business are making a conscious decision to flagrantly disregard the law just to save yourselves a few bob up front displays far more cynicism to the employee group, not to mention a complete lack of care.

In your last post you seek to imply that you are in fact totally aware of H&S legislation. But, it's clear from your posts that you are not. Rather than lashing out at me, and any organisations that I've worked for in the last 10 years and telling us that we are cynics for complying with the law, it might be worth spending a few minutes googling the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Regulations 2007. Regulations 70-73 specifically might be of interest in relation to this topic.

Stevo's Wife

 

[Diziet]

Yes, I am very cynical about it. My attitude is that you empower your employees and you listen to them. If someone doesn't like their mouse, chair etc they just order a new one. If they were having health problems due to the work they do then we'd talk about it and sort it out (it hasn’t happened but that’s what we’d do). If anyone sees anyone else doing anything that isn't good for them then they talk to them about it.
The business has been in operation for decades and we've never been sued. We have had minor work deleted injuries but as we are lucky enough to have an empowered and motivated workforce. If there’s a problem we treat each other like adults and agree a fair solution that everyone is happy with.

It's simple; everyone treats everyone else with respect. That way the organisation gets the best out of its most important resource and people go home feeling satisfied because they matter. So workstation assessments aren’t high on the agenda because if anyone wants to change their workstation they just change it.

Oh and cynically looking for ways to mitigate our risk of litigation and dressing it up as health and safety isn’t what we’re about. If someone got injured at work the priority would be to make them better not screw them over.

It's not just a matter of not liking their chair, mouse etc or not wanting to sit properly! Nor is it a question of suing the employer necessarily. I would like to relate my own experience of workstation assessment for reference (I am nt and have never remotely considered suing an employer - just to get this out of the way first...)

For a couple of years I suffered from stabbing pains on my shoulders. No amount of physio, exercise (I am healthy and active), relaxation, GP visits, painkillers did anything for any length of time. I looked up stuff on breaks, posture, desk arrangements etc and tried to follow them. My work at the time was desk and PC based. I did not actually raise this with anyone until I talked to the workplace nurse who was also an ergonomics assessor. She came straight over, spent half an hour at my desk adjusting the chair, desk, PC, mouse etc. Pain was gone in a week. She raised my chair by an inch, and that was the key item. I had never managed to get the height quite right and all the good work I did with exercise etc was undone as soon as I sat at my desk.

Was it a workplace injury? Yes, I think it was? Was it my fault? No, I don't see how it could be; I had done all I could. It was not directly the employer's fault either, but fortunately they recognised the importance of ergonomics and their own responsibility for employee well being. Would I have sued my employer? No, of course not. But I was in pain and constant discomfort, and the workstation assessment made a huge difference to me.

I am very practical by nature and by training, and fairly cynical a lot of the time. But ergonomics assessments are not a gimmick, and pain does affect quality of life. It is a long way from that to litigation, but if the pain can be removed by ensuring a proper working space, surely that's a good thing.

 

[Purple]

It's not just a matter of not liking their chair, mouse etc or not wanting to sit properly! Nor is it a question of suing the employer necessarily. I would like to relate my own experience of workstation assessment for reference (I am nt and have never remotely considered suing an employer - just to get this out of the way first...)

For a couple of years I suffered from stabbing pains on my shoulders. No amount of physio, exercise (I am healthy and active), relaxation, GP visits, painkillers did anything for any length of time. I looked up stuff on breaks, posture, desk arrangements etc and tried to follow them. My work at the time was desk and PC based. I did not actually raise this with anyone until I talked to the workplace nurse who was also an ergonomics assessor. She came straight over, spent half an hour at my desk adjusting the chair, desk, PC, mouse etc. Pain was gone in a week. She raised my chair by an inch, and that was the key item. I had never managed to get the height quite right and all the good work I did with exercise etc was undone as soon as I sat at my desk.

Was it a workplace injury? Yes, I think it was? Was it my fault? No, I don't see how it could be; I had done all I could. It was not directly the employer's fault either, but fortunately they recognised the importance of ergonomics and their own responsibility for employee well being. Would I have sued my employer? No, of course not. But I was in pain and constant discomfort, and the workstation assessment made a huge difference to me.

I am very practical by nature and by training, and fairly cynical a lot of the time. But ergonomics assessments are not a gimmick, and pain does affect quality of life. It is a long way from that to litigation, but if the pain can be removed by ensuring a proper working space, surely that's a good thing.

Yep, this is exactly the sort of situation where help from someone trained in ergonomics is a good idea. My problem is with the notion that this sort of thing is required even if no issues have been raised by any employees.

 

[Purple]

Purple - At the beginning of this thread you were completely unfamiliar with the concept of work station assessments, and seemed also to be completely unfamiliar with employment law and indeed H&S legislation... now, a few days later, you seek to imply that you and your business chose not to implement the safety measures that you are required to do by law due to having an "empowered" workforce, and not due to ignorance of the law. Strange that.

And, for some reason, it comforts you to believe that the organisations who are cognizant of their duty of care to their employees , and who also comply with legislation, are really just pretending to care and really just out to prevent law suits.

Is it cynical to offer manual handling training to all employees who need it?
(Sure, they are not 8... they know how to lift a few boxes!)
Is it cynical to carry out risk assessments of the work environment?
(Sure, if there's a problem in the area won't someone point it out? )
Is it cynical to offer free eye tests at regular intervals to employees who require it under legislation?
(Sure, if someone has sore eyes, won't they just tell us about it? )

In your eyes, yes, the above would all be cynical acts of self preservation by the employer. But, to any enlightened and knowledgeable employers, the above are basic requirements to ensure compliance with the law.

Bottom line, it doesn't put me up, down or sideways what you or your organisation do. But, stating that you and your business are making a conscious decision to flagrantly disregard the law just to save yourselves a few bob up front displays far more cynicism to the employee group, not to mention a complete lack of care.

In your last post you seek to imply that you are in fact totally aware of H&S legislation. But, it's clear from your posts that you are not. Rather than lashing out at me, and any organisations that I've worked for in the last 10 years and telling us that we are cynics for complying with the law, it might be worth spending a few minutes googling the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Regulations 2007. Regulations 70-73 specifically might be of interest in relation to this topic.

Stevo's Wife

You seem, by reading a few posts, to have gained what can only be described as a remarkable insight into me as a person and the organisation in which I spend my working day. If you were anywhere close to correct hearty congratulations would be in order.

Maybe it was comments such as;
"putting a programme of WSA in place would help to prevent such injuries, and provide a defence against such claims"

and

"But, if this is recorded, and the same employee gets injured (e.g. RSI) and tries to sue the employer, the fact that they were offered an assessment and declined to avail of it would go a long way towards getting their case thrown out of court."

Basically almost the entire content of your last post which was exclusively related to how workstation assessments can facilitate ass covering by employers that gave me the impression that you were talking about ass covering by employers. If this was not your intention then perhaps you should not have devoted almost all of your prose to the topic of how this important work can lend itself to ass covering by employers.

I am aware of the legislation in a broad sense (it’s not my core function within the organisation) but basically unless someone says “hay, I’m having a recurring problem because of how I work and I can’t seem to sort it out” it won’t figure large on our radar. God knows there’s a proliferation of health and safety companies and consultants out there so it’s not as if the world and its mother doesn’t have access to experts in the field. Like most things in life common sense should apply.