Animal Allergens Exposure Case Study

In 2010 IOM were instructed to prepare a report and provide opinions in relation to a claim for psittacosis as a consequence of the Claimant's exposure to animal allergens in the workplace.

The IOM were instructed to act on behalf of the Defendant to undertake a desktop review of the adequacy of the systems in place at the Defendant's premises to prevent zoonotic infections being spread to humans and to determine if, on the balance of probabilities, the Claimant could have caught the disease on the defendants premises.

The Defendants activities involved working with animals which had the potential to be naturally infected with a biological agent. IOM reviewed the adequacy of the Defendants compliance with The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 2002 (as amended) which applied to these work processes. The Defendant was required to have in place control measures which would have been adequate to reduce exposure to avian biological fluids to the lowest level reasonably practicable.

From the Defendant's own assessment of the risk levels associated with the Claimant's on-site job activities, he was identified as being at high overall risk from the potential hazards inherent in the animal handling process. However the Defendant did not consider, based on the low incidence rates of disease in the flocks that they handled, that the work activities of the Claimant placed him at any risk of contracting psittacosis.

It was the IOM's opinion in this case that even with low recorded incidence levels of Psittacosis, the Defendant should have provided the Claimant with suitable information, instruction and training on the hazards with which the Claimant worked and the control measures that he should have used to minimise the risks to the lowest levels reasonably practicable when entering areas and working on equipment where avian biological fluids may have been present.

As a consequence of the findings of the report the instructing solicitor advised the Defendant to offer settlement to the Claimant. This case and others demonstrates the overriding duty that the expert has to assist the Court and this duty overrides any obligations to the instructing party.