A West Midlands-based demolition firm has been prosecuted by the Government’s Health and Safety Executive after learning one of their teenage workers lost an arm in a horrific injury, according to work accident claim experts familiar with the case.
Lichfield, Staffordshire native, Thomas Bird, had been working as a labourer for UK Demolition Services Ltd at the time of the incident, which occurred in Ramsey on a site at Great Whyte, accident claim experts say. The nineteen year old worker had been working in conjunction with the driver of an excavator in order to load debris into the hydraulically-powered selector grab, according to statements read into the record at Huntingdon Magistrates’ Court.
However, without warning, the machine suddenly swung around, pinning the young man’s right arm between it and a wall nearby, crushing it. Personal injury compensation experts say that Mr Bird was rushed to hospital by air ambulance, but due to the massive damage the appendage sustained, surgeons were unable to save it and instead amputated the arm below the elbow.
The HSE investigated the incident, discovering that the driver of the excavator had been attempting to leave the vehicle whilst neglecting to turn off the ignition. As he tried to do so, his jacket became entangled with one of the excavator’s levers, engaging its power and sending the boom of the excavator careering into the teenage labourer.
As a result of the firm’s negligence by way of the excavation driver, UK Demolition Services Ltd was given a fine of £4,000 and also told to pay a total of £3.500 in court costs after it admitted that it had breached health and safety regulations.
One woman who had an amputation carried out on her finger after several mistakes were made on the part of medical staff has recently won her medical negligence claim against the NHS Trust responsible for the hospital where the incidents occurred.
According to accident claim experts writing for the Manchester Evening News newspaper, Claire Heywood sustained an injury to one of the fingers on her left hand after it was cut on a piece of broken glass five years ago. The injured woman attended the Royal Oldham Hospital’s A&E department, where her injury was bandaged and, having been told that no serious injuries had occured, was sent home.
Mrs Heywood, herself a nurse, informed hospital staff that she had fears that a tendon had been severed during the injury, but those treating her injuries discounted her words. Meanwhile, in the weeks following her injury, the woman felt stiffness and pain in her finger, and was urgently referred to go back to hospital by her GP.
Mrs Heywood was told upon returning to hospital that she needed a tendon graft due to a severed tendon, much as she had feared during the initial A&E visit two months prior. However, the nurse saw the finger amputated in 2011 even after undergoing several surgical procedures to alleviate her condition.
In response to the negligence of hospital staff, Mrs Heywood made a personal injury compensation claim against Pennine Acute NHS Trust, which made the admission of several mistakes, including unacceptable delays in surgery, neglecting to refer the woman to a hand specialist, and failing to initially diagnose and treat the severed tendon. Mrs Heywood has since received compensation for damages from the Trust, which has also issued its apologies.
One roofer from Bradford injured in a fall from height while on the job recently won his work accident claim, resulting in a personal injury compensation award of £70,000, experts say.
According to accident claim experts reporting for the Bradford Telegraph and Argus newspaper, Francis Ancliffe, a twenty eight year old Wibsey native, had been working on a mill roof owned by Halifax-based Calder Brook Estates Ltd, at the time of the debilitating accident. Mr Ancliffe fell from the roof, where he had been working without the benefit of a scaffold, and landed squarely on his feet, shattering both his heels from the impact.
Mr Ancliffe was confined to a wheelchair for a period of two months after the initial incident, which occurred in 2008. However, the injured man to this day still requires strong pain killers in order to cope with lingering pain, and medical professionals say that even more surgical procedures may be in his future as well.
Mr Ancliff, who had been entertaining hopes of one day setting up his own roofing business prior to the incident, has seen his dreams shattered in the wake of th incident. He has also had no choice but to give up some of his favourite hobbies, including playing rugby and football, due to the lingering affects of his injuries.
The injured man took legal advice and launched a compensation claim against the property owners, with the end result being a settlement reached out of court for £70,000. The cash will go towards easing some of the financial burdens that he has had to endure in the wake of his accident, Mr Ancliffe said in a recent interview.
Proposed changes to the way no win no fee legal claims work in libel and privacy cases would leave ordinary citizens having to deal with rules that are both ‘wrong and unfair,’ according to a libel reform campaigner group.
The prime minister has recently received a letter urging him to think twice about instituting changes to the no win no fee accident claims system, as libel reform campaigners and ‘tabloid press victims’ have come together to protest the new changes. The new bill, which includes restrictions on ‘after the event’ insurance and personal injury claims that use conditional fee arrangements, is set to have its final day in the House of Lords soon, with acceptance of the bill preventing claimants from recovering their insurance premiums and their solicitors’ success fees from the losing side.
The campaigners say in the open letter that the bill’s scope should be narrowed to exclude libel and privacy cases. The campaigners have strong objections to the measure, which was called ‘unjust’ in the letter, as it will only result in severe restrictions to ordinary Brits in libel and privacy cases when it comes to access to justice. Transparency in the public interest, free religious debate, and scientific breakthroughs could all be threatened under this new bill, with ordinary defendants finding it harder to find support for legal actions taken against them by large, deep-pocketed institutions that wish to silence whistle-blowers.
Moreover, victims of abuse from tabloids will have no recourse against tem for gross misrepresentation, false accusations, or phone hacking attempts, the letter also said.
Medical negligence on the part of mental health professionals led to a £6 million personal injury compensation payment after a thirty three year old patient was left with brain damage after he was prescribed the incorrect medication regime.
Colchester, Essex native, Christopher Lines, had been admitted in the summer of 2008 to the Lakes Mental Health Unit, but he lost consciousness for eighteen hours straight after he was administered the wrong medication, accident claim experts recently reported. In the wake of the incident, the man was left with profound brain damage limiting the use of his arms and legs and making it difficult for him to communicate, leaving him nearly completely dependent on outside care.
Thanks to the aid of his family, Mr Lines has since launched a medical negligence claim against the administrators of the mental health facility, the NHS Foundation Trust for North Essex Partnership. At a hearing in London’s High Court, the NHS trust admitted liability for the man’s debilitating brain injuries.
The compensation award to be paid to Mr Lines is thought to handily add up to more than £6 million over time, as the lump sum payment of £2.1 million will be buttressed by yearly payments of £205,000 in order to provide for the life long care needs of the injured man, experts say. In the wake of the High Court hearing, Mr Lines’ father, Steve, remarked that every last pound of the payment will go towards making sure his son has the care he so desperately needs both immediately and for the rest of his life.
One woman was recently told to pay £2,500 in personal injury compensation after her dog attacked a 74 year old pensioner without provocation, even as she denied her dog’s actions just seconds after the incident, accident claim experts recently reported.
Elderly pensioner Rita Highton was attacked by 55 year old Lesley Ellis’ dog, a Hungarian Vizsla, that left the older woman in need of skin grafts to her right forearm in order to repair permanent scarring caused by the injury. However, Ms Ellis was heard to say that it had not been her dog that had accosted Mrs Highton just moments after the attack, according to personal injury claims experts familiar with the case.
However, at a hearing at Scarborough Magistrates’ Court, Tony Green, chairman of the bench, ordered Ms Ellis to provide compensation to Mrs Highton. Ms Ellis was also told that her actions on the day in question were ‘outrageous,’ as she expressed less concern towards the bitten woman than she did towards the future of her dog.
The large hound, which was spared an order from the court to be destroyed, had been found to be both out of control and dangerous, with Ms Ellis bearing responsibility for the incident occurring in November of 2011 at the junction of Queen Margaret’s Road and Filey Road.
Mrs Highton had been rushed to hospital in the wake of the attack, having to stanch the flow of blood through the use of a makeshift bandage applied by a taxi driver that drove her to Scarborough Hospital. The elderly woman also needed to attend the Castle Hill Hospital in Hull to undergo skin grafts as well.
After comparing a twenty year old man to his twin brother in order to determine how much personal injury compensation he should be entitled to, the twin – disabled as the result from a road traffic accident at the age of eight – has recently been awarded £2.5 million, car accident claim experts recently reported.
Sam Boreham, who was left injured after the RTA 12 years ago, sustained devastating and permanent brain damage when the car he was traveling in struck a stationary one on the M1 motoroway. The insurers of the driver have reached a settlement with Sam, who will receive an immediate £1.1 million lump sum payment, along with £23,000 annually for the rest of his life in order to provide for his lifetime care needs.
At the High Court hearing to determine the level of compensation due to Mr Boreham, the injured man’s legal team stated that the possibility of a settlement being reached had been prevented by an inability to determine the full extent of the injuries he suffered to his brain until Mr Boreham reached adulthood. However, the unique nature of the case, which involved Mr Boreham’s twin brother who had emerged unscathed from the incident, gave medical professionals an exact benchmark to gauge the injured man’s development, thus making it possible to pinpoint the nature and severity of the trauma he suffered to his brain.
In related news, another individual injured in the crash also resolved her own personal battle to receive a compensation payout. Rosie Mayes, who is now tetraplegic following the accident, was finally given an undisclosed sum understood to be in the seven figures in order to pay for her intensive care needs, experts say.
The pupil of a secondary school located in Colchester sustained severe personal injuries when a pile of timber boards fell and struck him, leading to the school being fined by the Health and Safety Executive, accident claim experts recently reported.
The anonymous schoolboy, fifteen years of age at the time of the incident, had been passing through the foyer area of the school’s technology department when he accidentally disturbed the stack of boards, causing the 300 kg stack to fall atop him, sending him to the floor and pinning one of his feet beneath their weight. Personal injury compensation experts say the teenage pupil sustained serious harm in the accident in the form of fractures to both his left ankle and foot, with the understanding that the damage he suffered could prove to long-lasting or permanent consequences to his mobility.
The HSE investigated the incident, which had occurred at the Colchester-based Gilberd School, in Brinkley lane. Personal injury claims experts say that the school had neglected to undertake a proper risk assessment in choosing to use the foyer to store the stack of planks.
After school officials admitted to breaching health and safety regulations at a hearing in Colchester Magistrates’ Court, the Gilberd School was told to pay a fine of £9,000. The school was also made responsible for a total of £4.258.50 in legal fees and court costs as well.
One of the inspectors for the HSE that had been present at the hearing spoke in its wake, remarking that failing to undertake proper risk assessments leads to serious threats to safety for both students and staff at educational institutions.
The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers recently welcomed a decision made by the House of Lords to offer exemptions to industrial disease victims from the no win no fee limitations in the new Legal Aid bill, experts say.
APIL chief executive, Deborah Evans, stated that the new decision was excellent news for those Brits who had been victims of industrial diseases, calling it ‘imperative’ for the Government to not overturn these crucial Legal Aid bill amendments when the House of Commons takes up the debate. However, other injury victims that are not covered under the exemption have suffered a devastating blow, the personal injury compensation expert said, as these innocent classes of people may have had their lives completely upended through the actions of others yet will be denied access to justice under the new rules.
Ms Evans said that there are several problems with the new Legal Aid bill over and above genuine claimants losing access to justice. Under the proposed rules in the bill, the chief executive said, those who are still permitted to claim will see their damages cut by significant amounts.
The bill is nothing but ‘a backwards step,’ Ms Evans said, as a civilised society interested in justice and morality needs to take steps to ensure the vulnerable are protected properly. If these proposed changes become law, in the years that follow the new rules it will soon become prevalent that those innocent people who have suffered injuries and then had to suffer the indignity of having their access to justice taken away from them will have no choice but to rely upon the Government to see to their needs.
A safari park owned by a celebrity and her husband was the site of a young child’s serious injuries recently, leading to health and safety breach prosecutions and a possible personal injury compensation claim for the young boy’s injuries, accident claim experts recently reported.
The Manor House Wildlife Park, owned by Anna Ryder Richardson, the former ‘Changing Rooms’ presenter, and Colin MacDougall, her husband, was the site of an accident that led to serious head injuries being sustained by Gruff Davies-Huges, a three year old boy, who had been on a family day out with his mother Emma. Upon visiting the wallaby enclosure at the St Florence safari park, a nearby tree collapsed on Gruff and his mother due to high winds, with the toddler needing to be rushed to the intensive care ward of Cardiff’s University Hospital of Wales.
Personal injury claims experts say that little Gruff was not the only one to suffer serious injuries in the incident. His mother Emma was also struck on the head by falling debris, and sustained fractures to her pelvis, leg, and arm as well.
Following the incident, Pembrokeshire County Council conducted an investigation into the injuries sustained by the mother and son. Based on the investigation’s discoveries, charges of health and safety regulation breaches are to be leveled at the Manor House, Anna Ryder Richardson, and Colin MacDougall, who are listed as company director and company secretary respectively. Anna, forty eight years old, had been present at the park when the incident occurred, has reportedly been ‘devastated’ by the injuries suffered by Emma and Gruff.