Get a 10% discount on the booking fee for the above conference by clicking here and quoting “Scutt10″

During the Christmas break I read an article in The Independent about an increase in the number of “Valium addicts” being created by GPs and it stated

“Doctors are being sued for creating prescription drug addicts amid claims they have failed to follow safety guidelines published more than 20 years ago”

The number of clinical negligence claims is said to be increasing, from people who have been prescribed benzodiazepine drugs (which include diazepam/valium and lorazepam/ativan) for long periods of time and who have suffered injury and illness when coming off them.  The report suggests that GPs are still prescribing the drugs and quotes a Professor Malcolm Lader who believes there is a link between long-term tranquiliser use and brain damage as saying the Royal College of GPs is in denial about the issue.

This got me thinking on several levels.  The first was a reminder that when I was an articled clerk (ie trainee solicitor) back in 1991-93, I was told by my firm to “look after” the ten or so (legally aided) clients we had who were involved in the Benzodiazepine (BDZ) litigation which, at the time, was the biggest class action ever seen in the UK. The central thrust of the claims was that the drug companies should have known, or did know but didn’t act on the knowledge that long term prescription of BDZs could lead to injury. I don’t recall doctors being named as Defendants. It was frustrating work because all the exciting legal and medical stuff was done by the lead firms and my High Street firm acted as little more than a remote outpost, receiving instructions in the monthly bulletins from the lead firms, instructing the medical experts on the recommended lists and waiting for the inevitable outcome, which was collapse of the whole litigation after about three years.

Looking back it was obvious that the Plaintiffs, as they were then known in those long ago days pre-Woolf, would fail on the issue of causation.  In essence our clients, all of whom had (as far as I can recall now 20 years on) fairly nasty and intractable mental health issues anyway and it wasn’t possible to prove that the quality of their lives would have been much better without the drugs. Are we about to see a re-run of that litigation and that outcome?

In the first instance the potential defendants are different – last time it was the drug companies and this time the people prescribing the drugs who, surely, really should know better following the previous litigation? Breach of duty of care shouldn’t be much of an issue, but I suspect causation will be … again.

The story also got me thinking about the bigger scandal, which is the complete lack of meaningful assistance for people suffering from mental illness.  I’ve acted over the years in both personal injury and employment cases for many people suffering from mental illness and have seen the effects personally to me at close quarters. Doctors seem to have a very limited arsenal of tools with which to treat what is a massive problem in the UK.  They seem to have a wide variety of drugs to hand over (SSRIs, MAOI, TCAs etc) but trying to find a treatment other than a “mother’s little helper” is much harder.  Most of these drugs seem to take ages to work, give horrible side-effects when being taken and don’t do anything to cure the underlying problem.  That seems to be the task of so-called “talking therapies”, but try finding your way through the maze of counsellors and psychologists and any other number of “therapists” offering this or that “method” and it may lead you to the point of madness anyway. Even if you find someone, how do you know they are competent and won’t cause more harm than good? You might expect the overstretched NHS to struggle to offer anything, but do the big charities offer anything better?  Trying to find a support group for someone suffering from acute anxiety seems virtually impossible, for example.

Talking therapies are supposed to be much more successful in curing mental illness but it seems from what I have seen to be a neglected area.  Taking another pill instead is easy – it takes away the crisis but not the long term underlying cause.  I have some sympathy for overstretched GPs who can only spare 5 minutes with each patient at maximum.  Perhaps the NHS should spend some of the many millions it undoubtedly spends on anti-depressant drugs on developing and regulating the “talking therapy” sector, perhaps in conjunction with the relevant charities.  Will it take a potentially massive litigation against the NHS in the form of another BDZ class action to cause public policy to change?

The third thought I had on the issue was that back then most of the Claimants were funded by legal aid.  That won’t happen this time.  The participants will all be signed up on No Win No Fee agreements, backed by insurance (if the ATE industry will support it) meaning that if it collapses again it won’t be the taxpayer footing the bill. Undoubtedly many deserving Claimants won’t be able to seek redress.

None of this is new of course.  The Rolling Stones sang about it over 45 years ago;

“Kids are different today, I hear ev’ry mother say
Mother needs something today to calm her down
And though she’s not really ill, there’s a little yellow pill
She goes running for the shelter of a mother’s little helper
And it helps her on her way, gets her through her busy day”

No related posts.

Mother’s Little Helper? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 12/01/2012.

Sponsored Blog Post

Family lawyers often talk about how Christmas gives rise to an upsurge in divorce work in the New Year. The same is probably also true of personal injury work, if to a lesser extent. Claims for personal injury usually involve

• an accident at work,
•  Road Traffic Accident
• a slip or trip on a pavement
• injury by a faulty product.

The numbers of road traffic accidents increases in the winter with poor light and icy conditions.

If you have been injured in an accident you may want to take legal advice from solicitors that undertake work on a no win no fee basis. Before you can claim compensation you have to prove that the person responsible for the accident was negligent and that can be very difficult.

Accidents at Work & Occupational Illness

There has been much discussion over the last few weeks about the proposed changes to employment law.  What has been less talked about is another part of the Coalition government’s “bonfire of red tape” and budgetary cuts, being the reduction in the Health and Safety Executive’s budget, which will lead to fewer automatic inspections by the HSE of workplaces.

The HSE published its own Annual Statistics Report for 2010/11 recently and it contained some sobering facts.  In that period 171 workers were killed at work and 115,379 employees suffered injuries that were reportable under the Government’s RIDDOR scheme. In addition a further 200,000 employees suffered workplace injuries requiring more than three days absence.

On average each accident at work led to 15 days lost from work, which grosses up to 22.1 million days lost because of work-related ill health (e.g stress at work, mesothelioma and musculoskeletal disorders) and 4.4 million because of injury.  The number of cases of mesothelioma (caused by inhalation of asbestos) has increased substantially since 1968, when 153 people died, to 2321 in 2009.  The numbers of asbestos related cancers are expected to peak around 2016. The HSE estimates that the number of occupational cancer related deaths is around 8,000 per annum.

The HSE reports that around three-quarters of new work related conditions were either stress, depression/anxiety or musculoskeletal disorders.

Road Traffic Accidents

According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) Great Britain has one of the best road safety records in the world, but shockingly 1 in 5 people are killed on the roads each day. The main causes of accidents include speeding, drink driving, inexperience and failing to look properly.

Accidents on the road can lead to fatalities and injuries of the utmost seriousness down to more minor (but nonetheless painful and unpleasant) whiplash injuries.

Road Traffic Accidents can raise difficult legal and procedural problems, even in less serious cases.  It is important to take specialist advice from whiplash solicitors if you have suffered a neck or back injury.

Related posts:

1. Accident at Work? The Legal Basics You Need to Know
2. Have You Suffered a Personal Injury?
3. Workplace Accident Claims: the U.S experience

Accidents at Work and on the Roads originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 22/12/2011.

Banks are facing a rising tide of stress at work claims, according to Reuters yesterday. The report refers to anecdotal evidence by GQ Employment Lawyers to the effect that the number of “stress related lawsuits” is on the increase, but doesn’t say what type of lawsuits, nor give any statistics to back up the assertion.

 Never mind, the Health & Safety Executive’s own statistics for 2010/11 state the following;

“The number of new cases of stress, depression or anxiety has fallen from an estimated 254,000 in 2001/02 to 211,000 [in 2010/11]” *

Whether that downward trend will continue in 2011/12 or be broken as the report suggests we will have to wait and see. In my view it is unlikely that we will see a tidal wave of stress claims in the courts or Tribunals for various reasons – see below – but because when the next recession, which looks inevitable now, strikes it will be accompanied by job losses.  The CIPD produced a report yesterday predicting a “slow, painful contraction” in the jobs market in Quarter Four this year as many employers impose a hiring freeze. It isn’t actually predicting a rise in redundancies merely that once you’re out of a job you may find it hard to get another one.

I’ve acted for many employees over the years with occupational illnesses or injuries (including stress cases) and the one factor that usually concerns most, if not all of them, is the reaction of their employer if they bring a personal injury claim or assert their legal rights in some way.  Bankers are prey to this concern just as much as any other workers, arguably more so if they think it might jeopardise their annual bonus. The other concern, which should be ameliorated by the banning of pre-job offer health enquiries by employers under the Equality Act but probably isn’t, is that having a lengthy spell off work with stress will render a job-seeker “damaged goods”.

If I‘m wrong and a flood of stress at work claims does arise there’s another important consideration to bear in mind.  It’s relatively easy to commence a claim, start a protocol or issue proceedings, but quite another to win and recover compensation. Most employers faced with a stress at work claim aren’t likely to simply roll over and pay up.

There are several possible claims; in negligence for personal injury, for harassment under the Protection from

Harassment Act 1997 (PHA), or for injury to feelings at an Employment Tribunal if the stress is caused by harassment on the grounds of sex, race, disability, age, religious belief or sexual orientation (known as “Protected Characteristics”) . All it says is that claims from financial services staff are increasing, in the face of challenging economic conditions, long working hours, the threat of redundancy as well as being the occupation that currently everyone loves to hate (well, it gives estate agents and solicitors a break I suppose).

To sue for personal injury in the tort of negligence (which is the type of claim you would make if you suffered a whiplash injury in a car crash or a back injury from lifting something heavy at work) a Claimant has to have suffered a medically recognised illness or injury.  “Mere” stress won’t be enough, it has to go beyond that and will need to be verified by a medical practitioner, preferably a Consultant Psychiatrist.  That will be expensive.

The first legal issue is whether the illness/injury was reasonably foreseeable to the employer, in other words would the reasonable employer have realised, or should they have realised, that an employee subjected to those particular working conditions would suffer a psychological injury or illness.  That can be a difficult hurdle to overcome because mental illness tends to be “invisible” and most people don’t admit they have a problem until they become very unwell.  An employer is entitled to view his/her staff as being ordinarily robust and able to deal with the ups and downs of the workplace unless they have particular knowledge to the contrary.  It is in those cases where an employee has suffered mental illness, notified the employer of it, been off work as a result and then returned only to have another breakdown later on that have tended to be successful with claim for personal injury.

The second main problem tends to be in proving that the illness/injury was caused by or contributed to by the actions of the employer.  That usually means a forensic examination of the Claimant’[s medical records to see if they have any other stressors in their life – such as a prior history of mental illness, or have been going through a divorce, in trouble with the police etc.

Finally, these type of claims tend to be very expensive to put together, usually vigorously contested by the employer’s EL insurer and, because the claim is taken through the Court (High or County), there is a risk of losing and having to pay the other side’s costs – at least until the Jackson litigation reforms are introduced and we have “Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting”.

Claims under the PHA are, perhaps, slightly easier if the Claimant can show a near criminal standard of harassment from, e.g. their line manager, but that sort of claim doesn’t help an employee who is grossly overworked and trying to do the work of three people.  The ET claims for harassment and victimisation also require a “Protected Characteristic” to be the motivating factor in the employer’s behaviour.

Personal injury law is very unhelpful to people suffering from mental illness caused by the workplace. There won’t be a great increase in the number of claims going through the courts because the substantive law hasn’t changed.

• HSE Annual Statistics 2010/11 p.5

Related posts:

1. Seven Ways for Employers to Avoid Stress at Work Claims
2. Stress at work
3. Seven Top Stress Management Tips for Employees

UK Banks Facing Rising Lawsuits over Stress? Really? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 15/11/2011.

Guest Post

According to a recent article by no win no fee solicitors agency, First4Lawyers, around 15 people every single hour – that’s 130,000 patients a year – in Britain are admitted to hospital suffering from brain injuries or all severities. With brain injury figures on a steady incline, so too, it would seem, is the instance of third party negligence – like employer and medical negligence (for which many either don’t realise they can or don’t want to claim compensation). It’s fast becoming, therefore, quite apparent that something needs to be done to help prevent the risk of traumatic brain injury (TBI).

First4Lawyers, which is not itself a law firm, but puts victims in touch with injury lawyers that have the most experience in dealing with cases like theirs, is frequently contacted by people who have suffered injury in the workplace. While many are afraid to take their employer to task over accidents that occur in the workplace, it’s important that we do so in order to improve the standard of employment conditions not only in our individual places of work, but across the UK, too.

And while court success has seen some victims receive six- and seven-figure compensation pay outs, it’s still no compensation for the often horrific brain injuries (and the subsequent physical, mental and emotional fall out for the victim and their loved ones) sustained at work or, indeed, elsewhere.

Any blow to the head, no matter how light, can ultimately result in a traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the right circumstances, and can go on to cause a wide variety of side effects, ranging from concussion to permanent physically or mental disability or even fatality. Victims of brain trauma can suffer afflictions such as temporary or permanent memory, sight and speech loss, as well as anxiety, depression, behavioural and/or anger issues, and paralysis.

Approximately one million people each year are rushed into A&E departments all over the UK with reports of head injuries, and are therefore exposed to these health dangers.

It’s incredibly important that while you’re at work, you’re on the lookout for things that could potentially cause an accident. It’s not only up to your employer to provide the minimum basic health and safety measures, it’s also up to you to make sure that you don’t make conditions unsafe for your colleagues – and spotting a hazard and not reporting it means that you’re tacitly agreeing for that hazard to be there, and thus putting yourself and your colleagues at serious risk of injury.

Related posts:

1. Happy New Year!
2. New Year, New Look

One million suffering from brain injuries in the UK every year originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 26/09/2011.

Sponsored Post

A personal injury, whether suffered in an accident at work or in a Road Traffic Accident (RTA), or “merely” just a slip or trip in the street can be a serious, even devastating blow.  Lives can be significantly impacted by injury, not just in terms of pain and suffering but also loss of earnings, treatment fees and, in the most serious cases, care and adaptations round the home when someone is left disabled as a result.

Compensation isn’t available as of right; you first need to prove that someone was at fault for causing the accident.  That often isn’t easy.  The law can be complicated, especially where the accident occurred in the workplace. You need to get good legal advice from a firm of specialist personal injury lawyers to advise you as soon as possible after the accident has occurred.

Although most claims do settle before court proceedings have to be issued, there are many expenses that have to be incurred to prepare the claim. The most obvious one is the medical report (or reports in serious cases): they can amount to several hundred pounds and for self-employed people a report from an accountant might be necessary to support a claim for loss of profit.

Legal Aid is no longer available to cover legal fees incurred in fighting personal injury claims and the range of funding options are complicated.  If you consult a firm of no win no fee solicitors you will be given advice on how a claim can be funded. With a no win no fee agreement it is usually possible for a Claimant to insure against the risk of losing the claim and having to pay the other side’s costs (usually an insurance company). They will also will be able to assist in arranging the necessary reports to enable you to pursue your claim.

Related posts:

1. Personal Injury Awards are “Not Sacrosanct”
2. Accident at Work? The Legal Basics You Need to Know
3. Workplace Accident Claims: the U.S experience

Have You Suffered a Personal Injury? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 31/08/2011.

Sponsored Guest Post

A US railroad company, Metro-North, has been ordered to pay an employee damages in excess of $142,000. In addition, the company must promote him to a senior level as it was concluded that the worker was denied promotion because of a knee injury sustained whilst at work.

Metro-North railroad were found by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to have wrongly classified the injury as being completely unrelated to work, when in fact the injury took place whilst Mr Bill Ordner was on his lunch break.

A news release quoted a New England OSHA regional official by the name of Marthe Kent as saying that, “Metro-North’s policies and actions may deter employees from reporting on-the-job injuries for fear of financial or career consequences”.

There has been a recent clampdown on employers that actively discourage employees from making a workplace accident claim , which until now has focused primarily on private sector companies, such as manufacturers.

The decision was to compensate Mr. Ordner $125,000 in punitive damages,  $11,000 in legal and medical expenses, $5,000 for the suffering he experienced plus any pay backdated amounting to the sum he would have received, should he have been promoted. It has been suggested that the significant punitive damages were applied because of the complete disregard Metro-North had for its employees’ rights and wellbeing as well as their refusal to cooperate with the investigation.

A statement released by Ordner’s lawyer read, “In my situation, management was not willing to listen to my safety concerns and became relentless and purposeful in their efforts to retard my career advancements”.

Related posts:

1. Tesco Rules
2. Unfair Dismissal Without 12 Months Continuous Employment Experience?

Workplace Accident Claims: the U.S experience originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 18/08/2011.

Last week I read a brief summary about a case where personal injury and family law crashed together in the Court of Appeal .  I’ve not read the full case itself and if anyone has the link to it I’d be very interested to read it.  It’s a surprising case because one of the parties, Mr Mansfield had suffered serious personal injuries when hit by a car in an accident in 1992 and had been awarded £500,000 for the loss of a leg and serious spinal injuries.  The couple got together five years after the award was made to him which, if the remnants of my knowledge of matrimonial law still holds good, means that it was property acquired before the marriage and thus not a matrimonial asset.  I’d welcome any comments from any Family lawyers out there reading this who can explain it.

The husband’s award would have included compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenity, as well as his financial losses and, almost certainly, his anticipated future losses. As he lost a leg that would surely have included the lifetime cost of a prosthetic leg and its replacements, which don’t come cheap.

Unfortunately his marriage broke down, divorce proceedings followed and his ex-wife was awarded a lump sum of £285,000 from his personal injury compensation.  Leaving aside the merits of the ex-wife’s claim it does, at first glance, seem like a surprising decision. The award of over 50% of his compensation to the wife in the financial settlement would thus risk leaving him (literally) legless.

Which takes precedence: the needs of the husband to rebuild his life following a significant injury or the needs of his family?  On the basis of this decision the answer is the latter, the children’s needs trumped those of the father.  The wife’s barrister said “No part of a personal injury awards is sacrosanct”. It seems a very harsh decision to me.

Thanks to the Ramsdens Family Blog for bringing this to my attention

Related posts:

1. Have You Suffered a Personal Injury?
2. Enforcing Unfair Dismissal Awards Part II
3. Should the Government Cap Discrimination Awards?

Personal Injury Awards are “Not Sacrosanct” originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 16/08/2011.

Sponsored Post

According to a piece from The Mirror last Wednesday it is. This is because the government is planning “savage spending cuts” at the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) which will reduce the number of workplace inspections carried out, thus increasing the risk of personal injuries occurring.  The article cites a very sad incident to one worker mortally injured on his last day at work.

The government says it wants to “cut red tape” and plans to cut 11,000 workplace inspections as part of plans to reduce the HSE’s budget by 35% by 2014-15. It is all part of the government’s plan to “go for growth”.  As the HSE has statutory responsibility for protecting the health safety and welfare of people at work these cuts may well mean that it fails to fulfil those duties unless there is a significant reduction in scope of them.  That may be difficult because much of the UK’s health and safety legislation in inspired by European law.

Health & Safety Gone Mad?

Where the HSE does carry out a workplace inspection and finds that health and safety laws are not being observed, it can issue an enforcement notice requiring remedial action. The number of enforcement notices issued by the HSE (and by local authorities who retain responsibility for, amongst other things, offices and shops), has been increasing over the last couple of years. Click here for the statistics issued by the HSE. Expect the number of enforcement notices to decrease as a result of these cuts but that won’t necessarily mean the workplace is getting safer. In a recession there may well be more incentive on businesses to cut corners if it saves money and time

It’s a serious issue and one that deserves consideration beyond the usual, predictable, clash of “health and safety is strangling enterprise” and “more work for personal injury lawyers”, although the latter probably will be the result if more accidents at work occur because of a lack of inspections. There will probably be an increase in personal injury claims and whilst many will groan at the prospect of more work for lawyers, do bear in mind that if the HSE isn’t able to enforce health and safety laws in the workplace, it may only be the prospect of litigation that persuades some employers not to ignore it altogether.

“Health and safety” has become a dogma for some, to be trotted out as an excuse not to take any sort of risk, or to obstruct or as a smokescreen for when people can’t be bothered to put themselves out.  The government’s review of Health and Safety law is to be welcomed, but don’t let it put employees lives at risk.

Related posts:

1. Workplace Accident Claims: the U.S experience

Is the Workplace About to Get More Dangerous? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 28/03/2011.

Sponsored Post

Have you had an accident or injury at work?  If so, what are the basic legal issues you need to know?

There’s a big overlap between the laws of employment and personal injury. For instance, an employee may be able to bring a claim in an Employment Tribunal under the Equality Act in respect of disability discrimination where the employer has failed to make reasonable adjustments or the employee has been subjected to a detriment because of their disability.

However, in this post I want to look at the legal situation where an employee has an injury in the workplace or whilst performing their job. According to statistics produced by the Health & Safety Executive, 152 workers were killed at work in 2009/10. A further 121,430 workplace injuries were reported – meaning out of every 100,000 employees 430 were hurt in some way.    Some of those accidents will be just that – accidents – but if the employer is at fault in some way then it may be possible to seek compensation for an accident claim.

Every employer owes its employees a duty of care to look after their safety and welfare whilst at or about their work. The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 s.2 imposes a statutory duty on every employer “to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees”, breach of which may lead to criminal penalties.  It can also lead to a civil claim for compensation for injury and financial loss if the employee suffers an injury at work.

An Accident at work can come in all manner of ways, from lifting heavy objects, to tripping, being injured using machinery to having a road accident whilst delivering goods.  The law sets out minimum standards that an employer must adhere to. This duty is imposed both through implied terms in the contract of employment and by statute and regulation.

For instance the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require every employer with more than five employees has to carry out a risk assessment of all workplace activities to ensure compliance with relevant health and safety provisions. The Manual Handling and Operations Regulations 1992 set down rules on how manual handling in the workplace should be carried out – if at all possible it should be avoided.

There is also a raft of other statutory regulations governing all aspects of workplace life, such as the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations, use of Personal Protective Equipment, working at heights, using chemicals (COSHH regulations). It can be a complicated area of law and it is always worth seeking expert advice if you have had the misfortune to suffer injury.

So, what is the starting point?  Firstly, a person making an injury claim needs to show that the employer was in breach of the duty of care, or to use plain language, to prove that  someone was at fault.  That requires establishing the injury was (a) reasonably foreseeable, (b) the injury was caused by the breach and (c) the employee has suffered loss as a result.

An injured person can bring an accident claim at a County Court or the High Court, depending on the seriousness of the injury suffered.  The claim will be for “general damages”, awarded for “pain, suffering and loss of amenity”, such as not being able to do all the usual activities and pastimes of daily life. General Damages are assessed by the Court and are not tariff based, although attention is paid to other reported cases involving similar injuries. “Special Damages” are awarded for those out of pocket expenses suffered as a result of the injury, e.g loss of earnings, alternative travel expenses, treatment fees, replacement clothing and so on. A claim can also be made for future expenses that will be incurred because of the injury, for instance the cost of future surgery or prosthetics.

The accident claim must usually be commenced at court within three years of the accident, although it is always best to consult a solicitor sooner rather than later because of the preparation required.

If you have suffered an injury at work, be sure to take expert legal advice.

Related posts:

1. Workplace Accident Claims: the U.S experience
2. Accidents at Work and on the Roads
3. Have You Suffered a Personal Injury?

Accident at Work? The Legal Basics You Need to Know originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 27/02/2011.

On the 6^th April next month[1], the government’s new medical certification scheme comes into force replacing the current “Med3” sick note system.  It was decided to do away with the scheme because it focussed too much on what employees could not do and not enough on what they could.  In other words, a person was either too sick to work, or they were well and it ignored any, temporary or rehabilitative options that there might be to allow the person to remain in work.  For instance a person with back ache might be fit to work provided they did no heavy lifting or were allowed to get up and walk about every hour to ease discomfort whilst sitting.  With a Med3 that person can’t go to work despite the fact that they could do light duties.  The government’s aim, of course, is to reduce the number of days lost to sickness and the number of people from claiming benefit. The government has long been exercised by how to reduce the number of people on long-term sick leave, suffering from chronic conditions and the new “fitness to work” certificate tries to remedy that.

 Statutory Sick Pay will remain in being and, as before, a person will need a “Fit Note” from the eighth day of absence.  The certificate contains the following wording;

“I advise you that: you are not fit for work OR you may be fit for work taking account of the following advice: If available, and with your employer’s agreement, you may benefit from: a phased return to work; altered hours; amended duties/workplace adaptations”

The main thrust behind this is unobjectionable but, in practice, I can see it causing trouble.  G.Ps are unhappy about it because it places them in a potentially difficult position.  Margaret McCartney, a G.P based in Glasgow, writing in this weekend’s Financial Times, said that it requires G.Ps to become Occupational Health Physicians -  which is a separate discipline altogether and one which most G.Ps are not trained for.  She was also concerned that G.Ps might breach confidentiality to their patients in completing these forms because there is also space on them for further notes to be written in explanation of their recommendation. 

But, with my employment lawyer’s hat on, I can see two main impacts of this change.  The first is that people with less serious stress at work claims are going to find it more difficult to pursue their claims, especially for those employees who claim “stress at work” as a tactical weapon in response to disciplinary proceedings.   That must be a positive, especially for employers.  The second, less helpfully, is that employers may find themselves bogged down in arguments with their employees on just what they can and can’t do and precisely what the G.P had in mind.  Most employers are not occupational health experts anymore than most G.Ps are.  That could lead to grievances and, potentially, claims.  G.Ps might find themselves accused of professional negligence as well if they are too optimistic about what a patient can do. 

 Time will tell how this change will work and if it is successful in keeping more people in work.  It is a laudable aim and one that deserves to succeed.  I just worry that the government has tried to achieve it “on the cheap”. As usual.

[1] Social Security (Medical Evidence) and Statutory Sick Pay (Medical Evidence) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 SI 2010/137

No related posts.

Fit Notes: Fit for Purpose? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 22/03/2010.