Upper limb disorder in assembly line working

The IOM were asked to provide expert opinion in relation to a claim for the development of an upper limb disorder in an assembly line worker in the motor industry.

This was a case in an English court and the IOM were instructed as a single joint expert in this case. A site visit was arranged to inspect the Defendant's premises and to observe the assembly work involved. The Claimant was present to comment on any manner in which the work observed differed from what he had previously carried out and to provide any additional comment. Following the site inspection, a report was prepared which reviewed the potential for causation of the claimed injuries and any consequent liabilities of the Defendant. This had to take into account the fact that the design of some of the components had changed and that some of the actions were obscured from view by the car body. At the same time the expert has an overriding duty to assist the Court and this duty overrides any obligations to the instructing parties.

In addition to the practical skills, experience and knowledge of the physiological effects of relevant upper limb activities; the epidemiology of ULDs; and the ergonomics of the assembly process, the IOM were required to demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the legal system and their obligations under the Civil Procedure Rules, thereby ensuring that the instructing solicitors requirements were understood and met in full, in a timely and efficient manner.

Although the report from the IOM concluded that the Claimant's diagnosed injury was not caused by his work the Claimant chose to rely on other evidence and the case proceeded to court. In his judgement the Judge stated that he found the IOM expert "convincing and balanced as a witness" and, after careful consideration of all the evidence, concluded that causation (or a material contribution) was not proven on the balance of probabilities.