subject: When Can Work Dermatitis Lead To A Compensation Claim? [print this page] Slips, trips and falls are not the only source of work-related injuries in modern industrial Britain.
A recent case has highlighted the dangers of exposure to corrosive chemicals and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has drawn attention to this by emphasising the risk of the skin condition dermatitis. It is trying to make employers more aware of the risks involved in exposing employees to hazardous substances at work.
The call from the HSE has come as a result of a company pleading guilty to breaching the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (as amended) 2002. The investigation by the HSE found that the company managers failed to control the risks of exposing employees to hazardous substances at its premises, including a known skin irritant.
This resulted in one employee suffering from such serious dermatitis that he had to take early retirement on medical grounds. The condition has had a huge impact on the man's life and his future employment prospects are severely limited as a result. Yet this could have been avoided if relatively simple and low cost control measures had been put into place.
The HSE inspector said that the case illustrated the need for employers to take dermatitis risks as seriously as any other risk to health and safety in the workplace. Dermatitis is not just a 'bit of a rash' which can be ignored, but a painful, debilitating condition that can also be, as illustrated in this case, life changing. The real problem here is that it is also completely avoidable, and the incident shows a woeful lack of care on the part of the employers to minimise the risk of exposure to a hazardous substance.
In this case, the man has every right to sue for compensation as a result of his condition. The company was in clear breach of health and safety guidelines, and subsequently is accountable for the consequences of those breaches. It is another example of how work related injuries are not just classified into trips, slips and falls, but can cover other areas as well such as exposure to hazardous substances. In the same way that companies are being held accountable for exposure to substances like asbestos and the resulting devastating effects of mesothelioma and plural plaques, so any noxious chemical constitutes a health hazard and workers exposed to it should be afforded every protection. Otherwise, the employer is failing in their duty of care and their responsibilities to ensure that employees have a safe working environment. Injuries and illnesses as a result of this exposure could easily form the basis of a considerable claim for compensation if a direct link is proven between the exposure and the resulting condition.
All employers need to undertake risk assessments in a way that correctly identifies all of the significant risks, not just the obvious ones. These should include those to health as well as safety and as a result ensure that an appropriate package of measures are provided for the safety of all workers. A simple pair of gloves or protective clothing may have saved a man's career and for the sake of that, a company is now looking at a fine of over 27,000 and potentially a wholly justifiable compensation claim by the man involved that could damage their business considerably. It is a clear lesson to all companies that handle any kind of hazardous material - from cleaning fluids to caustic acids - that health and safety legislation is there not only to protect the safety but also the health of workers.
That legislation is backed up by the legal profession, who give no quarter when pursuing such obvious breaches of the employer's duty of care towards their employees.
