Latest Carrs Solicitors News & Announcements

Who should be so lucky in law?

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000

A potential problem with negligence law is that two individuals may be injured in the exact same way yet only one of them may have actually been wronged so as to be the successful subject of a negligence action at law. Someone who is injured in a car accident for example, owing to the other driver's careless driving may be entitled to compensation for their losses however as the Court of Appeal recognised in Mansfield and Another v Weetabix Ltd and Another this is not necessarily always so. The Court there held that there was no reason in principle why a driver who was involved in an accident caused by a disabling event should not escape liability. The driver concerned had caused the accident after unwarily slipping into a hypoglycemic state in which a lack of glucose resulted in his impaired brain functioning and to the causing of a serious road accident.

The questions of when exactly we are to be held to account for our actions- or what circumstances should give rise to a duty of care have perplexed legal philosophers and practitioners alike. Whilst the issue at surface level appears to be a question of luck, the issue is often reduced to the idea of responsibility. If someone has the capacity to perform a certain action, they should be held liable and be made responsible for the consequences of that action. The fact that the law only makes reasonable demands of us as to how we should act as citizens between one another perhaps strengthens this view that we should be responsible for any of our subsequently unreasonable actions. The problem with the Mansfield case is that the victim in the accident, unable to recover compensation for his losses has been clearly disadvantaged. Sometimes tort cannot provide all the answers but it aims to take into account the totality of a situation and act in a manner that is fair just and reasonable, and that cannot extend to make those objectively behaving reasonably, liable for an act not unreasonable.

What can we take from the latest workplace disease figures?

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Just like workplace accidents, it's an unfortunate fact of life that a certain number of workplace-derived illnesses will be recorded each year.

Although efforts are being ramped up to reduce the likelihood of people suffering from work-related cancers - a campaign led by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health aimed at curbing carcinogen exposure was launched in London earlier in November, for example - figures have shown that more employees in the UK are falling ill as a direct result of past exposure to asbestos.

The latest statistics released by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) indicate that as many as 1.2 million people who worked in the last year believe their illness was either caused or made worse by their occupation. Of this number, 500,000 were found to be new conditions that had been diagnosed during this particular 12-month period.

One of the more eye-catching statistics was that 2,535 people died from mesothelioma in 2012, having been exposed to asbestos in the past. This, according to the HSE, was a "substantial increase” on 2011, which suggests the issue is becoming more pronounced.

At Carrs Solicitors, we know that industrial diseases, especially those attributed to long-term asbestos exposure, are a big problem. We're not going to pretend that there's a silver bullet that will suddenly eradicate this issue - our job is to ensure workers and their families who have a legitimate claim for redress are given all the help they need to secure a fair compensation package.

The HSE figures show there were 2,145 new cases of mesothelioma assessed for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) in 2013 compared with 2,125 in 2012 - a modest rise, though a rise nonetheless. All in all, there were 6,140 new IIDB cases last year, with two-thirds of this number made up by those who had contracted lung-related diseases.

It begs the question; are people now more aware of their rights, and more importantly, do they know the correct channels to go through in order to claim against their current or past employer?

Previously, there were various factors that deterred people from pursuing legal action. Either they felt they couldn't prove that they had developed their illness at work or they believed that their employer would overpower them in any resultant case. Many potential claimants also had the idea that their case would drag on for a long time.

Thankfully, the growing number of successful claims being publicised is helping to encourage people to go after the money they are entitled to. The increasingly swift way that these cases are being dealt with has also arguably made a difference.

Nobody wants to be left in limbo for a prolonged period, which is why the industrial disease experts at Carrs always endeavour to ensure your claim is handled quickly and effectively. It costs nothing to find out whether or not you might have grounds to claim for compensation, so you have nothing to lose.

Where some companies apply a one-size-fits-all approach to handling claims, our legal experts take great interest in your individual circumstances and explain exactly how much money your are entitled to, based on the severity of your illness, how your quality of life has been affected and how much you are likely to pay in rehabilitation and medical costs. They will also take you through the step-by-step process of launching a claim.

For more information, get in touch today on 0800 587 0746.

Developments in the Law Relating to Mesothelioma

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000

The Mesothelioma Act 2014 received Royal Assent on 30th January 2014.

The Act is designed to provide a means for compensating the victims of an occupational illness described by the Supreme Court in the landmark decision of Sienkiewicz v. Greif (UK) Ltd and Knowsley MBC v. Willmore in 2011as "a hideous disease that is inevitably fatal” when the relevant insurer cannot be traced.

The Act provides for a pool of insurance company funds to be made available for those victims who are able to establish that they developed Mesothelioma as a result of unlawful exposure to inhaled asbestos caused by an identified Defendant who either is impecunious, often no longer trading and for whom insurance cannot be traced.

Controversially however the Act only provides for the mesothelioma suffer to receive 80% of the value of the compensation amount that they would have received had the matter gone to Court and only applies to victims of the disease first diagnosed on or after 25 July 2012. It does not cover other types of asbestos related illness or indeed any other uninsured occupational illness or injury.

The 80% provision is seen as a compromise that the insurance industries parliamentary backers were prepared to agree to.

This is particularly harsh to the victims and family members of those affected by this illness which typically has a 30-40 year latency period.

In other words the average mesothelioma victim in 2014 was likely to have had unlawful exposure to inhaled asbestos from the early 1970s onwards.

In 1969 two pieces of legislation were passed that had particular significance; one being the Employers Liability Compulsory Insurance Act and the second being the Asbestos Regulations.

It does therefore appear particularly unfair to the victims that the insurance industry which has had the capacity to profit significantly from the inception of compulsory employers liability insurance cover for 4½ decades, is now largely perceived itself as a "victim” in some sense whose commercial interests have been weighed against the desperate needs of the very parties whose interest the 1969 legislature was intended to protect.

According to the Office for National Statistics some 2,091 persons died of mesothelioma in 2011.

Asbestos exposure is according to the Health & Safety Executive, the greatest single cause of work related deaths in the UK and the annual number of mesothelioma deaths is not expected to peak until later this decade, when it is expected to reach 2,500 per year. Up to 85% of these deaths are according to the Health & Safety Executive are believed to be occupationally related.

According to the Department for Work and Pensions the projected number of mesothelioma deaths in the UK over the next 30 years is expected to reach 56,000 to 63,000. Most of those victims are now living and unaware that they carry a fatal legacy of their exposure to asbestos. Once they are given a diagnosis there is usually a rapid deterioration in health. They will not form a lobby group and will not have any political clout. The insurance industry on the other hand is very vociferous and politically effective in protecting its shareholders interests.

For an individual diagnosed with Mesothelioma a compensation claim can improve their quality of life and remove a source of anxiety about providing for loved ones and the legal procedures for seeking compensation have recently been streamlined but it is still extremely important to seek urgently specialist legal advice.

In June 2013 the Civil Procedure Rules were amended to include a new Practice Direction in relation to mesothelioma claims, which provides practical assistance to the smooth running of these cases where time is very much of the essence. The Practice Direction provides for the Court to be able to provide an early Case Management Conference at which an interim payment of £50,000 can be made (in addition to claims to the DWP under the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers Compensation) Act 1979.

Where liability is at issue, under the new rules the Defendant (in effect in most cases essentially the paying party being the insurance company) is required to "show cause” as to why Judgement should not be entered.

Following the Sienkiewicz case referred to above, it is no longer necessary for the mesothelioma victim to prove that their exposure to occupational inhaled asbestos fibres has 'more than doubled' the chance of developing the illness, as was previously the case but that the exposure made a material contribution to the onset of the illness on a balance of probabilities.

Where liability remains in dispute, the trial will normally take place within 16 weeks of service of the Court Claim Form. In addition, there is provision for the admission of deposition evidence given by the victim on video so that their evidence can be provided by DVD with transcript provided.

These developments should greatly assist many victims of mesothelioma in securing compensation payments at a significantly earlier stage.

Carrs Solicitors specialise in providing work related injury and occupational illness cases to include mesothelioma claims at no cost to our clients.

If you would like free advice regarding mesothelioma claims or other asbestos related industrial disease cases, we are happy to visit you and to give free advice either during or out of office hours.

Carrs Solicitors Win Back Injury Compensation Claim for Claimant

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Carrs Solicitors have recently recovered £7,250 in compensation for an accident at work which led to a back strain for a Senior Healthcare Assistant from Wallasey after the care home she worked for refused to negotiate until just weeks before the claim was due to go to trial.

The back injury was caused by the client having to support an elderly resident in order to prevent her from falling. The resident had not been re-assessed for manual handling purposes for several months and during this time her condition had deteriorated to the point that a hoist should have been provided.

When the accident was reported the care home failed to investigate it or to notify the Health and Safety Executive and original witnesses could not be traced. The Healthcare Worker appointed Carrs Solicitors because she wanted a firm of solicitors specialising in accident at work and workplace personal injury compensation claims.

Carrs Solicitors took the home to court on a no win no fee basis and succeeded in pressing for disclosure of the care records of the resident concerned under an exception to the Data Protection Act 1998. The care home decided to settle the case on the Health Care assistant's terms within two months of this.

If you have suffered a back injury at work and want to talk to a personal injury solicitor call Carrs Solicitors on 0800 587 0746 or fill out our online enquiry form.

Carrs Work Injury Solicitors Win £41K for Goods Driver

Mon, 03 May 2010 00:00:00 +0000

Carrs Solicitors of Bolton has recently recovered over £41,000 in compensation for Mr Roy Nelson, a professional HGV driver from Par, Cornwall after he suffered a falling injury at work.

Mr. Nelson was on a construction site delivering roof trusses that had been stacked vertically on the back of a flatbed truck. Because of uneven ground at the building site, workers had to unload the heavy trusses by hand using a method with which Mr. Nelson was unfamiliar.

Furthermore, the trusses were the same length as the bed of the truck meaning that during the unloading process there was no room for Mr Nelson to stand to the side of the trusses.

The consignment of trusses collapsed and as Mr. Nelson attempted to jump clear, he fell off the truck. Although he did not fall from a great height, he sustained a fractured vertebra, collarbone and ribs.

Carrs Solicitors of Bolton, a specialist work related personal injury firm, accredited by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, was instructed by him on a no win no fee basis to help him obtain compensation for his construction site injury.

Managing Partner John Carr, an expert in construction site injury claims, explains, "Most falling injuries occur at heights below 10'. Although a worker may not fall far, he has less time to react and is more likely to land badly. Had the truck bed been long enough, Mr Nelson could have stood to the side of the trusses while unloading, and had adequate training been provided, the injury could have been easily avoided.”

After early denials of liability, offers to settle followed and were ultimately increased by 65% and a full admission of liability made in relation to breaches of the Work at Height Regulations. Carrs Solicitors then assisted in setting up a compensation trust for Mr. Nelson.

If you have suffered an accident on a construction site and want to talk to a personal injury solicitor, call Carrs Solicitors on 0800 587 0746 or fill out our online enquiry form.

Carrs Solicitors win £5,500 compensation for Stockport man injured at Work

Sun, 09 May 2010 00:00:00 +0000

Mr Mike Malone a Fabricator Welder from Stockport has recently won personal injury compensation worth £5,500 following an accident at work involving the use of an angle grinder on a cutting job for which he had always maintained that an Oxy-Acetylene torch would have been more suitable.

Mr Malone initially was advised against pursuing a claim by another firm of personal injury solicitors before speaking to Carrs Solicitors who specialise in work related injury claims.

Carrs Solicitors took the case on under a No Win No Fee agreement and after applying to the High Court to restore Mr Malone's former employers to the Company Roll served court proceedings and set about securing the best engineering and lay witness evidence.

Legal liability was denied by the insurers and their solicitors on four occasions and Carrs Solicitors continued to gather evidence and pursue the case towards trial. Compensation offers eventually followed and were increased by 57% before the case settled out of court.

Speaking about the case Mr Malone said "I was extremely pleased by the way in which my case was handled, with every development explained in layman's terms. I was most impressed however by the amount of "homework" Carrs Solicitors put into the case regarding the use of angle grinders in the workplace. This is what won the case at the end of the day."

Carrs Solicitors Win Manual Handling Claim for Coach Driver

Mon, 10 May 2010 00:00:00 +0000

Carrs Solicitors have recently won substantial injury compensation for Mr Thomas Hughes, a Coach Driver from Castle Vale, Birmingham who injured his back when attempting to assist a passenger unload an excessively heavy item of luggage from a coach at Heathrow Airport.

Some passengers arrive for their coach, hoping to board long haul flights with suitcases crammed with tin cans and other foodstuffs. Two drivers would be allocated to each coach and one would load the luggage and one would unload at the end of the journey. However, the driver responsible for loading the heavy suitcase at the start of the journey had failed to warn Mr Hughes that the suitcase was excessively heavy.
Mr Hughes' employers failed to provide adequate scales so drivers could test the weight of any items they believed to be overweight. When Mr. Hughes' back injury occurred, the supervisor to whom the accident was reported failed to make an accident book entry and when Mr Hughes returned to work from sick leave the company refused to make a retrospective record of the incident and failed to notify the HSE. The back injury sustained by Mr. Hughes eventually forced him to change employment.
Mr Hughes brought his work injury claim some time later when he was no longer working for the company. His colleague had also left the company and could not be contacted. Without any witnesses to his lifting injury, unable prove the actual weight of the suitcase and no longer sure of the date of his injury, Mr Hughes decided to seek help from Carrs Solicitors of Bolton due to their specialisation in work injury claims.

Carrs Solicitors immediately identified breaches of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 and evidential records that the employer would have to disclose and represented Mr Hughes' case on a no win no fee basis.

His employers predictably denied all knowledge of the incident saying that Mr Hughes had not been on duty with the colleague in question or that he had not been injured as alleged. Carrs Solicitors obtained a court order that required the disclosure of tachograph records that suggested that Mr. Hughes' back injury had occurred one day earlier than initially believed when both men had been on duty working with the same vehicle. Mr Hughes medical records also supported his version of events and his employers admitted full liability and made and offer for damages. The level of compensation was significantly improved before the case settled out of court.

Speaking about his claim Mr Hughes said "I am very pleased indeed with the service Carrs Solicitors provided. I will always be very grateful for what you did for me”.

Carrs Solicitors in Bolton can be contacted 24 hours a day about work-related lifting injury and back injury compensation claims on freephone.

Work Related Injuries: Myth and Reality

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0000

The HSE has provisionally released figures for the number of fatal accidents at work for the 2008/2009 year which show a further decrease following the trend of previous years to 180 deaths throughout Britain. This is a reduction of 17% on the previous lowest total of 217 recorded in 2005/6. According to Dr Paul Stollard the Health and Safety Executive Director for Scotland many of these deaths could have been prevented by simple and sensible precautions. These figures compare favourably with those of similar Western economies and reflect a growing acceptance of the morale and legal duty upon employers to promote safety at work. The HSE are only too well aware however of the popular myths surrounding the culture of "ELF and safety” and have responded with an item on its website entitled Myth of the Month pointing out that the common perception of the Health and Safety Executive banning numerous worthwhile activities is not one founded on reality as they point out that far from banning cheese running events, knitting in hospitals or toothpicks "in reality HSE has banned has very little outright, apart from a few high-risk exceptions like asbestos, which kills around 4,000 people a year”.

However urban myths that we encounter on a daily basis is that of the "compensation culture” winning a claim for personal injuries that are sustained at work or otherwise involves a considerable amount of scrutiny by the insurers and/or their solicitors and in manycases ultimately by the Court before a penny of compensation is paid. Recent research undertaken on behalf of the Better Regulation Task Force of the last Government has shown a downward trend in relation to compensation claims resulting in the payment of compensation over recent years. These perceptions play a significant role in the way in which the parties involved in the personal injuries claims process interact.

Insurance companies earn billions by 'commoditizing' risk. Employer's liability insurers choose to enter the market as beneficiaries of a legal obligation for employers to take out such policies and perpetuate the compensation culture myth to justify increasing their premiums. A recent study by the DWP revealed that a restructuring of the insurance market, a reduction in insurer's investment income and increased re-insurance costs following the World Trade Centre attacks had a very significant impact on premium increases. The Insurance establishment often tries to stigmatize those seeking redress for the injury and loss caused by others negligence as essentially parasitic feeding off insurers and their premium paying customers. The paradox of insurers complaining of 'blame culture' is that unless someone is in fact to blame there can be no liability to insure in the first place. The genuine victims in the employer's liability cases that I see are the injured parties more often than not struggling to make ends meet on Statutory Sick Pay and worrying about the reaction they are going to get for having the temerity to hold their employer to account.

If you want more information or would like to get in contact with a work injury solicitor then contact Carrs Solicitors on 0800 587 0746 or email us via our web form.

Construction Work Injuries: Workplace Inspections Reveal Shocking Results

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0000

Every year, thousands of people claim compensation for construction site injuries, and new figures from the HSE are making it easier to understand why. The recent survey has revealed that a fifth of North-West construction sites are posing a high risk of work injuries and fatalities. The inspections were performed at over 200 sites across the region and have shown worrying evidence that too many employees are being put in unnecessary danger.

This will be the fifth year of the inspections, and such poor figures are leading us to question; why do so many employers continue to fail their staff?

Minimising Work Injury

Over 1,000 construction workers were injured in the North West last year, and eight lost their lives. This is often due to the employer's failure to implement successful health and safety procedures. At Carrs we believe that an inspection shouldn't be the first time workers are aware of an unsafe environment.

We have prepared a safety checklist to help construction workers recognise when they should make a work injury claim, and how they can increase safety in the work place.

1. Reporting Work Hazards

As a worker, it is your duty to follow health and safety guidelines and report any hazards to your manager. By reporting injury hazards you are helping to enhance the overall safety of your site.

If you believe you are at risk of a work injury, make a note of all safety precautions and conversations with senior members of staff. Having a record of communication will strengthen your case if you need to make a work injury claim.

2. Work Safety Check

Here is an initial outline of what you should check:

Sufficient training for machinery/equipment
Clear health and safety guidelines - For fire risks, falls, maintenance
Thorough and regular risk assessments
Good emergency procedures

3. Work Injury Claims

If you have experienced a work injury on a construction site, you could be eligible to claim compensation. At Carrs Solicitors, we will review your injury claim and help you to build a strong case.

Our team have had years of experience successfully claiming for a range of work injuries and continue to hold an excellent reputation across the UK. Our cases have included warehouse accident claims, industrial disease claims and factory accident compensation.

Find out if you can make a 'no win, no fee' injury claim and call our Bolton office today on 0800 587 0746. Alternatively, you can fill in our online enquiry form.

Preventing Work Accidents: Aviva Launch New Campaign

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0000

At Carrs Solicitors, we have the specialist knowledge to help our clients claim compensation for accidents at work. This is how we know that good health and safety measures are integral for every workplace. Every year workers suffer accidents that could have been prevented and this is why we were interested in Aviva's new campaign called 'Simply Safety'. The campaign has been launched in a bid to combat accidents at work and increase awareness of health and safety.

At Carrs, we know that safety precautions and work injuries often go hand in hand. You could potentially claim compensation if you have had an accident due to safety guidelines that were not followed.

The 'Simply Safety' campaign highlights this by showing the danger of trips and slips in the workplace. Accidents of this nature can be prevented through regular checks and failure to do so can cause devastating effects for individuals and businesses.

Other ways of preventing work injuries and accidents include:

Thorough risk assessment
Clear health & safety procedures
Frequent safety inspections
Regularly checked machinery and equipment

The effects of accidents at work can often be long term, and in some cases fatal. If you believe you are at risk in your work place, or you have suffered an occupational injury, contact Carrs Solicitors.

Making a Work Injury Claim

If you would like more information on safety related work injuries, do not hesitate to contact a work injury lawyer at Carrs Solicitors. Our occupational injury team are available to offer advice on all areas of work injury claims. Successful cases have included warehouse accident compensation claims, office accidents and asbestos claims.

Find out if you can make a 'no win, no fee' claim and call our Bolton office today on 0800 587 0746. Alternatively, you can fill in our online enquiry form.

Accidents at Work: The Statistics

Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0000

Is your work putting you at risk? The HSE has released last year's statistics of work place injuries. The figures show a detailed report on all work accidents and show a significant decrease in injuries and fatalities.

It is encouraging to see such improvement, but is it really enough? At Carrs, our solicitors know that occupational injury cases continue to be one of the most common sources of compensation. Many businesses are still failing to follow basic health and safety precautions, and the effects can be devastating. An example of this is the agriculture and construction industries, which still account for a considerable amount of fatalities every year.

So, are these figures reassuring, or have we still got a long way to go?

Occupational Injury: The Facts & Figures

Accidents at work

5.1 Million: This is how many days were lost due to injury in the workplace.

1.3 Million: The number of people affected by illness due to their occupation.

152: The amount fatal accidents that occurred at work.

233,000: The number of reported work injuries

Most Common Work Injuries

Fatal Work Injuries: Industry

Agriculture: 8 fatal injuries per 100 workers

Construction: 42 fatal work injuries

Manufacturing: 25 fatal work injuries

The figures continue to show high numbers of injury in the workplace, many of which could have been prevented. Although stricter safety procedures have lowered the number of injuries and fatalities, this is only making it more important to claim compensation for a work injury.

Accidents at Work: Making a Compensation Claim

Employers have a legal obligation to ensure the safety of their employees, if this is not honoured you could have the right to claim compensation. Pursuing a work injury claim will highlight the dangers of high risk industries and continue to lower these statistics.

If you have experienced any sort of work injury, do not hesitate to contact a work injury lawyer at Carrs Solicitors. Our occupational injury team are available to offer advice on all areas of work injury claims.

Find out if you can make a 'no win, no fee' injury claim and call our Bolton office today on 0800 587 0746. Alternatively, you can fill in our online enquiry form.

Work Accident Claims: Top 5 Hazardous Jobs

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0000

At Carrs Solicitors, we have years of experience helping clients claim compensation for accidents at work. Our specialist knowledge has helped people make successful claims across a wide range of industries.

Read on to discover the top five jobs to result in accident claims in the UK and what you should do if you have been injured at work.

1. Construction Work Accidents

Construction workers are faced with occupational hazards at all times. Accidents can occur through slips and trips, machinery or poor health and safety precautions. A need for regular risk assessments is often ignored, which puts thousands of workers at unnecessary risk.

Other compensation claims include:

Falling compensation claims (From heights - scaffolding, roofs and windows.)
Accidents involving machinery
Falling objects or debris striking workers.
Exposure to asbestos

2. Agriculture Industry Compensation

Agriculture continues to top the list as the industry with the most work fatalities. This has resulted in thousands of people claiming for accidents every year.

Our work accident solicitors have made successful claims for:

Machinery compensation claims
Moving vehicle accidents
Exposure to unsafe chemicals

3. Manufacturing Accident Claims

Dangerous machinery, heavy goods and busy environments all contribute to the high number of manufacturing accidents.

Claims we have won for manufacturing workers include:

4. Warehouse workers

Factories and warehouses can be hazardous environments due to the amount of machinery and equipment.

The most common warehouse injury claims are:

Forklift truck accident compensation
Defected work equipment
Machinery accidents compensation
Insufficient health and safety guidelines

5. Office Accidents

Believe it or not, a large number of work accidents take place in the office.

Here are some office work accident claims we have won:

Trips and Slips compensation
Lifting injuries and accidents
Repetitive strain compensation claims

Work Accident Compensation Claims

If you have experienced any sort of work injury, or you would like more advice about the above claims, do not hesitate to contact Carrs Solicitors. Our work accident team are available to offer advice on all areas of work injury claims. We are dedicated to providing a professional and friendly service that will win the injury compensation you deserve.

Find out if you can make a 'no win, no fee' work injury claim by calling our Bolton office on 0800 587 0746. Alternatively, you can fill in our online enquiry form.

How to Make a Work Injury Claim

Wed, 04 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000

We've written a blog post that will make it easier for you to prepare for a compensation claim. Whatever work injury you've had, Carrs solicitors can offer straight-forward legal advice to produce the best possible outcome. We have years of experience claiming for every type of work injury and possess the specialist knowledge to produce great results.

Below are the three simple steps we take to achieve a successful work injury claim.

1. Consult A Carrs Work Injury Solicitor

It is important to contact a solicitor as soon as possible after your work accident. This will give you the best chance to build a strong case that will win the compensation you deserve. We will talk you through your accident and gather all the relevant information to create a successful claim.

Some of the work accident claims we have won include:

Set up an initial meeting to discuss you claim by calling us today on, 0800 587 0746.

2. How has your work injury affected you?

We will then begin to assess the effects of your work injury and the losses it has incurred.

This can include:

Loss of income
Medical fees
Counselling

If your claim relates to ill health, we will ask you for a full account of your health problems, and the contact the medical professionals involved in your treatment. This will help us better understand your work injury claim, and recover the optimum amount of compensation.

3. Beginning Your Work Injury Claim

Once we have assessed your claim, we can then begin contacting the relevant parties and start the claim process.

You can expect:

Regular contact with your work injury solicitor
Dedication to the success of your claim

Carrs solicitors will ensure that clear communication runs throughout your case, so you are always kept up to date with progress. Ultimately, we aim to successfully resolve your injury claim quickly and efficiently.

Make a Work Injury Claim Today

If you have experienced any sort of work injury, do not hesitate to contact a work injury solicitor at Carrs Solicitors. Our occupational injury team are available to offer advice on all areas of work injury claims.

Find out if you can make a 'no win, no fee' injury claim and call our Bolton office today on 0800 587 0746. Alternatively, you can fill in our online enquiry form.

Mesothelioma Claims: Why the Supreme Court got it right

Fri, 27 May 2011 00:00:00 +0000

At Carrs Solicitors, we pride ourselves on delivering successful and fair results in all of our work injury claims. This includes the compensation we have won for workers suffering from the effects of asbestos diseases an area that is often the subject of biased reporting in the media.

A recent Telegraph article on Asbestos claims arising from a landmark legal decision of Sienkiewicz v Greif and Knowsley MBC v Willmore is a case in point.

Read our guest blog post on the Charon QC website.

Accidents at Work: The Onus is on the Employers

Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0000

Yet another firm has been hit with a hefty fine after an entirely avoidable accident at work left two workers seriously injured.

While many believe that work-related accidents are usually down to mistakes made by employees, the blame actually often lies with the employer, which is why a large proportion of incidents like this lead to personal injury claims and subsequent compensation being paid out to those affected.

According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), two workers - Ashley Emes and Nick Stone - were hurt after a trolley load of glass panes fell on them at manufacturer Pilkington's Imperial Park site in Bristol.

Bristol Magistrates' Court was told how the trolley had been overloaded by colleagues, with the majority of the weight on one side of the trolley.

Mr Emes suffered a broken leg and required 72 stitches in his neck, while Mr Stone suffered severe tendon damage, cuts and bruises. Pilkington was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,646.

Commenting on the case, HSE inspector Mehtaab Hamid said: "This horrific incident could have been avoided if Pilkington had a system in place to ensure its staff knew the loading capacity of the trolley, the weight of the loads being put on it, and how to load it correctly.

"Employers have a duty to ensure their staff have the information and training necessary to carry out their duties safely, and higher standards should be expected from such a large and well known company."

At Carrs Solicitors, we agree that employers across all industries need to make health and safety a top priority, having seen the effects from working closely with victims of personal injury.

As the HSE stated in its report, this incident could easily have been had more care been taken by Pilkington. We would hope employers don't only emphasise health and safety in the aftermath of an accident, but do everything they can to anticipate and evade them.

To find out how we at Carrs Solicitors can help following an injury at work, call 0800 587 0746 or complete our online enquiry form.

Juror Faces Jail after Communicating with Defendant over Facebook

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0000

Social media has revolutionised the way we communicate with one another. The lack of strict, widespread regulation over the internet, whilst enabling more innovation and creativity, has however resulted in the erosion of traditional rules and practices.

Following the recent Twitter saga and its potentiality to undermine the allegedly infallible 'super-injunctions,' Facebook has come under scrutiny as a juror has been convicted of contempt of court for communicating with a defendant over the site

The issue has reintroduced the debate as to whether 'trial by jury' really is the best way to ensure that justice is properly served in the criminal trial. Aside from the potential for some jurors to invalidate months of meticulous work as well as waste millions of pounds, some even question whether jurors effectively participate in the task they are set. Evidence suggests that in large groups of 12, jurors are likely to be heavily influenced by dominant individuals within the group and contrary to their oath may not come to an impartial decision. The psychology department of the University of Portsmouth has advocated the splitting of juries into groups of four to deliberate, before they must come together for the final verdict, as this would enable greater discussion from all parties.

Whether a shake up to the format of juries will occur is yet to be decided. Nevertheless the case at issue sends a clear message out to jurors to take more responsibility in respecting the rules of this fundamental civic duty.

The Myth of the ‘Compensation Culture’

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0000

A recent study referred to in the Law Society Gazette has revealed that as many as half of personal injury victims do not claim compensation for their accidents ultimately casting doubt on the prevalence of the compensation culture. Over 1200 participants engaged in the study and whilst an eye opening 39% of them had suffered some form of injury at work, only 48% had initiated a claim for compensation.

The principal reason for this appears to be that members of the public were unaware of their legal entitlement to recover the costs incurred by an accident at work, whether that be costs for the accident itself, or extra expenses that have left the individual in a worse position than they would have otherwise been in.

Whatever your accident, it is always worth consulting a solicitor to see if there is anything that can be done to help you. Carrs Solicitors, as a specialist injury at work firm have the experience and tact to assist claimants with these often sensitive issues. Call 0800 587 0746 today.

Risk assessments can prevent your work related accident occurring.

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0000

Could my accident have been prevented?

Many victims of work related accidents are hesitant to make a claim against their employers because they are unsure as to who was actually responsible for what happened; their employers or themselves? In determining liability, lawyers continuously grapple with questions such as; was the nature of the accident preventable? And did the activity causing the accident present a risk which was reasonably capable of being identified? In a fairly recent trend of judgements, the courts appear to be improving the position of victims and demanding more of employers through emphasising the significance of risk assessments.

Duty of care and risk assessments.

Employers have a duty of care over the health and safety of their employees in their capacity as employer. On a practical level this starts at the creation of a sufficient and suitable risk assessment. Employers must not only consider and take action against reasonably foreseeable risks that they themselves deem important; they must take positive measures¹ to ensure they have conducted a fully informed and comprehensive assessment. The duty of care to one's employees is a non-delegable duty. So whilst tasks and the organisation of tasks may be delegated to 'reputable contractors,' ultimately it is the employer who bears responsibility for the care of their employees; even in the case of delegated risk assessments.

Risk assessments can have at least an indirect bearing upon the probability of an accident occurring since it pre-emptively provides an opportunity for an employer to militate against a possible risk materialising. In many cases of work related accidents, what may ostensibly appear to be something that one should have avoided doing themselves, because in hindsight it could be deemed contrary to common sense, a properly conducted risk assessment can flag up the hazards of behaving, or failing to behave in a particular way and ensure the safety of individual workers. As Lady Justice Hale, one of the Supreme Court's Justices, has noted; "The employer is not entitled to assume that all his employees will on all occasions behave with full and proper concern for their own safety.” Victims who are hesitant over whether they should initiate a claim should bear this in mind. The law is very often on your side and employers are all too aware of the regulations and practices they must abide by to rightly ensure your safety.

If you have had a work related accident, at your normal place of work, or elsewhere as part of a recreational training day or otherwise do not hesitate to contact one of our specialists at Carrs Solicitors who can advise you on your possible legal entitlement to compensation. Call our freephone number on 0800 587 0746.

1 Threlfall v Hull City Council

2 Uren v Corporate Leisure UK Limited and Others Council

3 Koonjul v Thameslink Healthcare Services

North West England sees a sharp rise in work related deaths

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0000

The HSE have recently cited evidence that the number of work related deaths in the North West has risen by 35% since last year. Construction and manufacturing industries appear to be most affected.

Proposed cuts to the HSE's budget of 35%, by the government, are likely to further weaken their ability to effectively enforce breaches of health and safety, as the occurrence of on the spot inspections are set to diminish.

If you have suffered a work related accident or have been affected by a work related death, Carrs Solicitors can offer you specialist advice on your potential legal entitlement to compensation. Call 0800 587 0746 today.

Victorian era compensation claims show an unexpected familiarity

Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0000

Research into Aviva's archives has revealed that our ancestors made many of the same sorts of claims as we may see today. Nineteenth century awards of compensation for example were dished out to an individual who slipped on some steps whilst exiting a Turkish bath, a grocer who slipped whilst playing 'blind-mans buff' and an artist blown over in a gale. These findings resonate with the apparently long standing idea, that certain individuals owe us a duty of care to take precautionary measures to prevent such incidents occurring.

If you have been affected by a work place accident do not hesitate to speak to a specialist at Carrs Solicitors who can advise you on your potential legal entitlement to compensation. Call us on 0800 587 0746.

Nuclear test veterans win leave to appeal from Supreme Court.

Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0000

Veterans who were involved in nuclear tests in Australia, on Christmas Island and in the Pacific Ocean between 1952 and 1958, have moved one step closer in their claim for compensation for a range of health defects following an alleged exposure to unsafe levels of radiation during their service.

The Supreme Court has granted permission for the claimants to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision, who barred the case due to 9/10 of the test cases exceeding the limitation period of the claim. Legally a claim must be brought within 3 years of the date of injury or three years of knowingly developing an injury or illness as a result of the breach of duty.

It is expected that the next stage of the appeal will be heard later this year.

If you have suffered a workplace accident or have acquired an industrial disease but are unsure as to whether you are still eligible to launch a claim, do not hesitate to seek advice from a specialist at Carrs Solicitors who can advise you on your potential legal entitlement to compensation. Call today on 0800 587 0746.

Drug trial victims are awarded compensation.

Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0000

The leading pharmaceutical company Pfizer has begun to pay compensation settlements to families in Nigeria who were affected in an experimental drugs trial in 1996. The anti-meningitis drug Trovan was trialled on a number of children during an epidemic of the disease in Northern Nigeria, however ultimately lead to 11 deaths and many more severe disabilities. Pfizer has finally agreed to settle the case, despite previously denying liability for the deaths and disabilities of the victims

EU offers 210 million Euros to farmers following E-Coli outbreak

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0000

The EU Farm Commissioner has offered to pay out 210 million Euros in compensation to farmers across Europe who made substantial losses during the recent E-Coli outbreak in the German City of Hamburg. It is estimated that the actual losses of those affected may total to 417 million euros per week. Lobbyists have argued for the full recovery of lost profits and are questioning the alleged disorganisation in locating and investigating the source of the outbreak which has so far claimed 26 lives and infected 2,400 individuals. Although recovery of pure economic losses is highly constricted in the UK it is right that businesses should be recompensed for such disruption, to what would have been their busiest season for exports. It is hoped that those injured individuals and dependants of bereaved who later chose to pursue claims wll not be dismissed as mere free-riders of any so-called compensation culture.

Ban cosmetic surgery advertising

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0000

The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons has published a six point plan aimed to show how steps may be taken to improve the regulation of the cosmetic industry. Following the recent concerns over possible rupturing of breast implants made by the former French Company Poly Implant Prosthèse (PIP) greater attention has been drawn to the lack of regulation in this highly commoditized area of surgery.

The proposals call for a ban on the advertising of all cosmetic surgery in a bid to tackle the increasing amount of people going 'under the knife' for purely cosmetic purposes. They also call for mandatory annual checks to be made upon all plastic surgeons as part of their continuing professional development.

This is particularly apt at a time when the Health and Social Care Bill is set to shift the basis of the NHS as an institution delivered by public bodies to a much more market oriented system of independent providers. Potentially unscrupulous effects of such a market, guided by efficiency and value can perhaps be seen by the fact that many leading private clinics have refused to replace women's implants which is inevitably set to cause such clients distress and a sense of injustice. Furthermore one clinic in Birmingham has even gone so far as to waive the legal rights of clients to sue the clinic, in exchange for receiving a discount on replacement surgery.

It is clear that something needs to be done to enforce a tighter scheme of regulation in this area where consumers appear to be being given less than satisfactory treatment by such powerful and large corporations.

Who should be so lucky in law?

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0000

A potential problem with negligence law is that two individuals may be injured in the exact same way yet only one of them may have actually been wronged so as to be the successful subject of a negligence action at law. Someone who is injured in a car accident for example, owing to the other driver's careless driving may be entitled to compensation for their losses however as the Court of Appeal recognised in Mansfield and Another v Weetabix Ltd and Another this is not necessarily always so. The Court there held that there was no reason in principle why a driver who was involved in an accident caused by a disabling event should not escape liability. The driver concerned had caused the accident after unwarily slipping into a hypoglycaemic state in which a lack of glucose resulted in his impaired brain functioning and to the causing of a serious road accident.

George Osborne delivers £1 million pound payout in compensation to homeowners

Fri, 22 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0000

583 Homeowners living in rural Knutsford and Mobberly have been awarded £1 million compensation from The Manchester Airport Group after claiming damages for the noise, pollution and loss in value of their homes, since the building of a second runway at Manchester Airport in 2001.

The payment, delivered by Tatton MP and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne and applauded by him as a 'good outcome,' comes after more than a decade of campaigning by local citizens and businesses and will be directed to individual homeowners, schools and the local council.

It's perhaps funny that Mr Osborne here wishes to be seen to as supporting the claim made by his successful constituents, given his comments when delivering his budget on tackling the "compensation culture." Contrary to the advice of lead adviser Professor Ragnor Löfstedt in the government review on health and safety legislation, Mr Osborne has recently re-iterated government's plans to either "scrap or improve 84% of health and safety legislation."

Clearly all compensation claimants are equal but some claimants are apparently more deserving than others.

Supreme Court gives Birmingham City Council workers the green light to proceed with compensation claims.

Thu, 01 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0000

The UK Supreme Court has recently issued a landmark judgement in the case of Birmingham City Council v Abdulla and others. The case, brought by 174 mainly female ex Birmingham City Council workers, has enabled women who were being paid less favourably than their male co-workers to make claims for earnings that they were entitled to during their employment with the Council.

The women brought their cases to the court after learning that male co-workers in similarly graded positions were earning much higher incomes during their periods of employment. The women had been denied a large proportion of their wage entitlements, largely by virtue of bonuses that were being paid out to male co-workers, to such an extent that the women are now expected to receive around £2 million pounds in pay-outs between them.

The claim was founded under the European Union originating "equality cause" which most pertinently manifests itself in the Equality Act 2010. The Act serves to render any terms of a woman's employment contract which are less favourable than those of a man in a similar position, equivalent to that of their male counterpart's. The substantive effect of this provision is to entitle the women to compensation for any disparity in their past earnings, as compared to male co-workers.

Birmingham City Council's main contention, and point of appeal was that the case should have been dealt with at an Employment Tribunal as opposed to the High Court as it would have been "more convenient" to deal with the issues in this specialist forum. The majority of the Supreme Court Justices, however, rejected this submission stating that since the limitation period for bringing a claim within the Employment Tribunal window had long expired; in the interests of justice it could never be more convenient to adopt such an approach.

The effect of this decision as dissenting Justice Lord Sumption inferred, in these sorts of cases, would perhaps be to deprive employers some of the statutory protections they have previously enjoyed and the 6 month Employment Tribunal limitation period of its content. The result is nevertheless a welcome one to the ex-council workers who, along with a further thousand former city council employees are being encouraged to proceed with submitting compensation claims.

New advice on usage of cut off saws issued by the HSE and Highways Agency.

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0000

The HSE and the Highways agency have collaborated to produce a new guide on ways to mitigate one's exposure to respirable crystalline silica, a fine particle dust that is often released when cutting into stones, rocks, sand and clay. The advice is directed towards construction and maintenance workers who are required to use cut off saws (also known as disc cutters, con saws or 'whizzer's'). The effects of inhaling the silica dust can be potentially fatal as it often leads to conditions such as silicosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer. The new guidance advises workers to dampen down the dust with water and to wear a suitable dust mask or respirator when working with this equipment, on these surfaces.

If you think that you may have been exposed to unsuitable levels of silica dust by your employer or contractor, and have contracted an occupational related illness, Carrs Solicitors may be able to advise you in relation to whether you have a potential compensation claim.

Queen unveils new Asbestos-related mesothelioma compensation scheme

Mon, 13 May 2013 00:00:00 +0000

The Queens Speech last week unveiled a new scheme purporting to help those suffering from asbestos-related mesothelioma. The scheme, outlined in The Mesothelioma Bill, will be available to those victims who have been unable to trace their previous employers or insurers who would have been liable to pay compensation out to them. Asbestos-related mesothelioma victims occasionally have difficulty in tracing the person or organisation that is responsible for exposing them to the deadly asbestos fibres, or employers' liability insurers due to the fact that the symptoms of this disease typically present themselves 30 to 40 years after the initial exposure. Furthermore, employers Liability Insurance only became compulsory in 1969. The terms of the new scheme have been highly criticised, owing to the fact that it is severely restrictive in its content. Sufferers will only receive a flat rate pay-out, expected to equate to approximately 70% of the average compensation pay-out currently made by insurers to such victims and it is thought to only be available to those mesothelioma sufferers who were diagnosed after July 25th July 2012.

Another omission of the scheme is that it is only available to those who have specifically contracted asbestos related mesothelioma and no other asbestos related conditions such as lung cancer and asbestosis.

If you have developed an asbestos related illness, and believe that it has been caused by exposure to asbestos fibres during your working life, Carrs Solicitors are happy to have a chat with you about whether you are entitled to make a compensation claim.

Regulations introduced by the HSE aimed to prevent needle stick injuries in the workplace.

Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:00 +0000

The HSE has recently introduced 'The Health and Safety (Sharp Instruments in Healthcare) Regulations', which will come into effect later this month. The regulations which employers to effectively control the risks posed to employees from sharps injuries.

The legislation is the result of a European Directive announced earlier this year and hopes to help increase safety in the workplace. The terms of the regulations include requiring employers and contractors within the healthcare sector to have effective arrangements for the safe use and disposal of sharps (including using 'safer sharps' where reasonably practicable, restricting the practice of recapping of needles and placing sharps bins close to the point of use). It also requires the provision of the necessary information and training to workers and the investigating and taking of prompt action in response to work related sharps injuries.

If you have had an injury arising from contact with a needle stick in any area of work (healthcare or otherwise) , Carrs Solicitors may be able to assist you in claiming for compensation.

Exposure to carcinogens and asthmagens in the surface engineering industry.

Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:00 +0000

The HSE has recently undertaken some research which aimed to investigate whether repeat Biological Monitoring over a period of time could be used to help to drive sustainable improvements in the exposure control of hexavalent chromium, nickel and cadmium compounds in the electroplating industry.

The HSE's research did in fact confirm that better understanding of the exposure pathways, achieved through repeat Biological Monitoring, did in fact result in reductions to exposure levels amongst many of the companies that it visited.

Exposures to nickel, hexavalent chromium and cadmium in the electroplating industry are said to occur through a combination of inhalation, dermal and ingestion routes. This should be taken account of when employers are conducting risk assessments and designing exposure control strategies for their workforce.

If you believe that you may have been exposed to unacceptable levels of compounds within the metal plating industry, and have suffered an injury as a result, contact Carrs solicitors for a free chat as to whether you are eligible to make a compensation claim.

Supreme Court indicates that the MOD has a duty of care on the battlefield to combatants as claimants are given the go ahead to take their compensation claims forward.

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0000

The UK Supreme Court has this morning issued a judgement on its case of Smith and others v The Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41 which has arisen out of the death of three and the serious injuries sustained by two servicemen, whilst on operational duties in Iraq.

The proceedings centre on two different incidents, one being a "friendly fire" incident and a number of related MOD misgivings and another concerning the suitability of and safety afforded by a class of "snatch Land Rover" vehicles that were being used by some of the servicemen concerned. The main legal issues in the proceedings relating to the snatch land rover claims were whether the deaths of the two Privates concerned were within the jurisdiction of the European Convention on Human Rights, and if so, whether and to what extent did article 2 (The right to life) impose positive obligations on the UK with a view to preventing the deaths of its own soldiers in active operations against the enemy. In relation to the friendly fire incidents, and a commensurate negligence claim, the issue to be determined was whether the allegations of negligence should be struck out because they fall within the scope of combat immunity and because it would not be fair, just or reasonable to impose a duty to take care to protect against death or injury in the circumstances.

The court held that with regards to the Snatch Land rover claims, the privates concerned did fall within the UKs jurisdiction for the purposes of the convention at the time of their deaths and as such the claims should not be struck out as determined by the lower courts. The courts also decided that the negligence claim should not be struck out on the ground of combat immunity or on the ground that it would not be fair, just or reasonable to extend the MODs duty of care to those cases.

The reasons for the decision centred on three main themes. Firstly, the jurisdiction of the convention did extend to the circumstances of these cases, particularly given that the issue was raised by the European Court of Human Rights in the Al-Skeini case in July 2011 which stated that six Iraqi civilians who had died as a result of the actions of British armed forces were within the UK's jurisdiction for Convention purposes. The UKSC also appear to have formulated a general principle that extra-territorial jurisdiction can exist whenever a state, through its agents, exercises authority and control over an individual. The Convention, it indicated was not an indivisible package but could be divided and tailored to the particular circumstances of the extra territorial act in question.

The second line of reasoning in the decision was that although a wide margin of appreciation was to be deferred to the state in this domain, in order to avoid imposing unrealistic or disproportionate obligations upon the state, the court must nevertheless give effect to those obligations where it would be reasonable to expect the individual to be protected by article 2. In principle therefore, the claimants may be able to proceed with their claims under this article, though the facts of each case have to be analysed.

Thirdly, the circumstances in which operations are undertaken by the UKs armed services vary and cannot all be dealt with a broad brush, deferential approach. The issue of whether it would be fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the MOD in the areas relating to the snatch rover claims under article 2 cannot be properly determined without hearing full evidence and only then can the court properly determine whether any proposed duties could be deemed as unrealistic or burdensome.

The Supreme Court reports that the effect of this decision is that all three sets of claims may now proceed to trial to essentially be able to determine whether damages can be recovered for the incident in any of the claimant's specific circumstances.

The case is a welcome result for servicemen and women and the families of deceased service men and women who may have previously been barred from pursuing damages claims against the MOD for incidents in Iraq by virtue of their previous lack of jurisdiction to bring a case forward. It is expected that many individuals will now launch cases in respect of injuries they sustained whilst on duty during the course of their employment with the MOD.

Fracking compensation payouts

Sun, 30 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0000

Companies set to extract shale gas in the UK are expected to offer communities local to the exploratory drilling facilities sums of £100,000 and those next to production sites will receive 1% of all generated revenues. Critics have questioned whether the sums will adequately compensate communities for the inevitable financial losses that they will suffer to the value of their properties as a result of the plans. Questions have also been raised as to whether those who are most affected will even receive the money as it appears that the money may in fact be directed towards the local councils in which the affected residents subside.

As well as the far reaching financial and environmental concerns that fracking processes ignite, the process of hydraulic fracturing or fracking, also poses a risk to workers employed in the industry of developing silicosis and other respiratory illness as a result of airborne dust created during the fracking procedure.

Fracking encompasses the use of highly pressurized drilling methods in order to extract natural gas from rock. After an oil or natural gas well is drilled, a pressurized combination of sand, chemicals, and water is pumped deep below the earth's surface in order to create fractures in the rock. Sand is also pumped into these wells in order to hold open the tiny fissures that appear during the drilling, which allows oil or natural gas to escape from the rock. The sand that is used at fracking sites typically contains a large proportion of silica which can become airborne when moved between transport and machinery. This increases the likelihood that workers may inhale airborne silica dust, which can put them at risk of developing silicosis or other respiratory diseases.

Silicosis tends to develop 20 years or more after an individual has been exposed to the potentially harmful silica dust and so any employers employing workers on such sites should take precautionary steps to ensure that their staff are properly equipped with suitable personal protective equipment when commencing work on these sites.

Don’t get mugged by an insurer…use a solicitor!

Wed, 07 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0000

The provocative new Law Society campaign under the above title has caused quite a stir. The insurance industry has complained to the Advertising Standards Agency saying that the campaign is 'defamatory and misleading' whilst in the meantime insurers own legal representatives are said to be 'saddened' by the initiative.

The Law Society' attempt to bluntly spell out to injured parties that insurers who deal directly with injured parties who claim against their policyholders, without the involvement of independent legal representation, frequently fail to recover the compensation they are entitled to is to be applauded.

The Law Society makes the point that those who use a solicitor, tend to fare significantly better. In the past insurers have tried to use their own statistics to argue that they pay more compensation when dealing directly with unrepresented claimants but they have been notoriously reluctant to disclose their data or methodology.

Insurers see no problem in trying to avoid the claimant having either medical or legal advice and have recently been censured for selling claims against their own policyholders. The number of deserving claims that insurers reject altogether is another factor. Certainly in our experience approximately a quarter of all claims that we succeed with follow complete denials of liability by the insurer. Furthermore many of the claims in which we succeed involved winning technical arguments in relation to allegations of 'contributory negligence' which further affects the amount of the payment.

This is not to say that employers liability insurance claims handlers are not necessarily well intentioned (although this should not always be assumed in view of the counter compensation culture) but those most in need of legal representation are often the last to realise it. Insurance companies are duty bound to protect their own policyholders and shareholders' interests, they owe a duty of confidentiality to the employer and have no legal duty or incentive to protect the injured party's interests.

In employers liability injury claims the injured worker is a lay person usually under significant financial pressure and worried about antagonising their employer to start with. Where the claimant acts in person his economic disadvantage is compounded by his lack of legal knowledge when dealing with an insurance company professional who negotiates compensation payments down on a daily basis. To suggest the clear conflict of interest does not create a systemic bias against the claimant is ludicrous.

Try to imagine a scenario where the insurance industry in a drive to reduce costs laid off all of its professional claims department's staff, loss adjusters and legal advisors and delegated the task of determining claims to the claimant's professional representative.

If that was to happen the Insurers Industry's (CEO) 'survivors group' would have to seek refuge at No 10 again faster than you can say 'victimhood.'

Author: John Carr has over 18 years experience in employer's liability injury claims and has helped thousands of people claim compensation for accidents at work, occupational disability or industrial disease. You can find him on Google+

Developments in the Law Relating to Mesothelioma

Thu, 15 May 2014 00:00:00 +0000

The Act is designed to provide a means for compensating the victims of an occupational illness described by the Supreme Court in the landmark decision of Sienkiewicz v. Greif (UK) Ltd and Knowsley MBC v. Willmore in 2011as "a hideous disease that is inevitably fatal” when the relevant insurer cannot be traced.