Nurse John Smith has injured his back in a lifting operation at his workplace. It is a serious injury. He has suffered a disc prolapse, a very painful disorder of the spine. He can no longer work.

He has lost the career that he loved and worked extremely hard for. He suffers a loss of role and self-esteem as a result of his injury. He has lost confidence, finds himself bored, is unable to drive and incapable of cooking or doing other chores around the house.

Our direct public access barristers consider the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (MHOR) which govern the risks to employees involved in lifting and moving heavy articles at work.

In this case our direct public access barristers (and a Court) must ask:

(1) was John Smith an employee?
(2) was he attempting a manual handling operation?
(3) was there a risk of injury involved?
(4) could the employer have avoided the operation reasonably, or if not, had he taken all reasonable measures to reduce the risk?
(5) whether the employer had assessed the risk?
(6) whether, in fact, it was the lifting which injured John Smith?

All injuries are covered by the MHOR, not just the back.  All workplaces are covered.  All employers of workers are covered.  All employees are covered, but not the self-employed.

To read more about making a personal injury compensation claim, click here.

Was John Smith an employee?

The answer to this is not always clear.  For example is a neighbour paid for helping out at harvest time an employee?

In this case the answer is straightforward. John Smith is employed as a nurse by an NHS Trust.


Was he attempting a manual handling operation?

Sometimes the answer can be vigorously contested in court. Is trussing a chicken two hundred times a day a manual handling operation for the purposes of this legislation?

In fact, a manual handling operation involves "any transporting or supporting of a load by hand or bodily force"

Here, John Smith's job required him to tend to patients which from time to time required them to be lifted.

"A load" includes any animal and any person.

This clearly constituted a manual handling operation for the purposes of the regulations.

Was there a risk of injury involved?

Our direct public access barristers quickly conclude that there is a clear level of risk in the lifting of patients given the weight involved and the bending forwards which would be required. A resulting injury is at least foreseeable as a possibility.

Could the employer have avoided the operation reasonably, or if not, had he taken all reasonable measures to reduce the risk?

Of course patients have to be lifted for various reasons, but the real question here is whether the employer could have taken steps to avoid his employee carrying out manual handling which involved the risk of injury to that employee.

The answer of course was to provide equipment, adequate staffing levels and proper training so that Nurse Smith was not driven by his duty (and the practical lack of an alternative) to carry out the lifting personally.

Here the situation is woefully inadequate. The ward was so underequipped that it had to share one mechanical hoist with another ward.The hoist was usually broken. This resulted in nurses having to lift patients themselves.
There was a lack of staff, so that Nurse Smith could not call upon colleagues to assist him. On one occasion, Nurse Smith had to lift a paralysed patient six times during one shift. The NHS trust's arrangements for lifting were inadequate. Had the employer had assessed the risk?

In this example it is plain that the employer had assessed the risk of some point. The employer after all knew that hoists were necessary for these lifting operations.

To read more about making a personal injury compensation claim, click here.

Was it the lifting which injured John Smith?

Here the medical evidence was agreed.  Nurse Smith had had no pre-existing back problems and that doctors were all confident that his back injury stemmed from the lifting operations he had been obliged to carry out.

Was there contributory negligence?

In this claim as in most manual handling claims, the defendant NHS trust allege that Nurse Smith had contributed to his own injuries.  They alleged that he had not asked for help, nor had he followed the training procedures he had been shown.

In short they alleged that he was a contibutory cause of his own misfortune.  That even if their procedures were less than perfect, it was the fact that he had chosen to lift the patients alone which caused his injury.  They alleged he was careless, even reckless with his own health and well-being.

The defendant NHS Trust lose that argument hands down.


The Outcome

Nurse Smith wins his case. It was the negligence of the Trust management which caused the injury and is responsible for its ramifications.

Lack of adequate equipment and staff shortages meant he sometimes had to tend to patients alone, putting unacceptable strain on his back. The relevant equipment was often out of commission.

He is compensated for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. His future prospects are blighted and a figure for future loss has to be arrived at, and the costs of any help he may now need, e.g. help with cleaning and cooking, have to be calculated. A lump sum is paid.

How We Help

Nurse Smith is not alone, since about 40% of all injuries reported to the Health and Safety Executive arise from lifting or manual handling.

Back disorders are the most common form of ill-health disorders of work. Nurse Smith’s employers should be doing all they can to prevent and manage the risk.

In fact the solution is relatively simple.  Employers need to educate themselves and their employees about the risks involved in lifting and moving.  However, poor manual handling techniques and inadequate provision of lifting equipment and training mean that workplace accidents are still very common.

Nurses are vulnerable in this area. So are farm-workers, teachers, laundry-workers, baggage-handlers, social-workers, chemical-products workers among may others.

We can help you, either with or without a solicitor, at every stage of a personal injury claim of whatever type, from initial contact to conclusion of court proceedings.

You can either contact us directly using our contact page or the Personal Injury Compensation Claim Form link.

If you already have a solicitor or are otherwise represented you may let them know you would like us to be involved in progressing your case. Call Gerard Quirke on 07983 565690.

To read more about making a compensation claim for personal injury, click here.