Tweet
I will keep this short.
In 2016 I was taken ill at work, work sent me to hospital where my back was scanned. It was found I had Disc Bulges, Disc Infusions, Stenosis and Osteopetrosis of my Spine..
Management proceeded to place me on zones which aggravated my back.
On the 28th January 2020 my back gave way at home, I was in major pain and could not move. My DR signed me off for 2 weeks, then a further two weeks after that. AT the first two weeks, Occupational Health, ('OH') classed me fit for work, going against my DR's advice. I was threatened with the sack when I requested a second opinion. I contacted HR and they agreed with me, I needed a second opinion. On the 31st January I was assessed again, where OH states that they were agreeing with their original decision. Further to this, they stated that I was not in control of my pain. Management proceeded to place me on zones which went against OH's advice.
In October 2023, I was off from work due to my back, I requested a referral to OH. My manager who was also my manager in 2020 arranged this for me. My PL gave OH my old number of which I had not used since 2018, so there was several appointments missed.
I managed to contact Occupational health and an appointment was made on the 22st February 2023, some four months after my initial referral. There was four missed appointments due to my former manager putting my old phone number on my referral. Issues arising, Tennis Elbow and aggravated back injury.
My solicitor, who is free as part of Union subscription just sent me the following, would this be true? Please note, the 'Opportunity to sit' was put in place in 2020 due to my back injury.
Thank you for sending me the records.
I note your comments below – however, anything that was more than 3 years ago is “out of time” in relation to the 3 year limitation period.
When you started the claim you instructed us that it related to your back and elbow symptoms due to moving to the a new role in April 22 then moving to large panels in the summer of 22.
The OH reports from 20.2.23 onwards would therefore be relevant.
There were reports dated 20.2.23, 2.3.23, 9.3.23, 13.4.23, 9.10.23, 17.11.23, 12.2.24, 29.2.24.
In all of the reports there is a permanent restriction for an opportunity to sit, however, there are no restrictions in any of them regarding your back. You were assessed as fit for work with those restrictions.
Your elbow problem was first mentioned in 20.2.23 but you were deemed fit for work, with restrictions, whilst awaiting a workplace assessment.
By 2.3.23 you had been given exercises to do, and a temporary restriction was put in place regarding no sustained or heavy grip – until 31.3.23
On 9.3.23 a workplace assessment had taken place – this had happened within a reasonable time period following your first report of elbow symptoms. Alternative duties or stillages were advised. The temporary restriction regarding gripping continued. There is no restriction regarding your back.
On 13.4.23 you were reassessed, you were doing exercises and having physio. You were assessed as fit for your current role, the temporary restriction regarding gripping was extended. There were no restrictions in place for your back
On 9.10.23 you had been off work due to neck and arm pain. Your symptoms had eased, and you were carrying out your normal process. You were awaiting a scan. There were no restrictions regarding your back or gripping in place.
17.11.23 you gave an update regarding your neck and shoulder issues. You were still awaiting a scan. You stated that you could complete your job role without concern, as such it was deemed that no OH intervention was needed.
12.2.24 your main concern was diabetes, although you did mention your neck and back pain, which fluctuates, and your elbow. However, you stated that you could complete your current role without it aggravating your symptoms and that you only occasionally needed to take painkillers. You stated that there were no work-related concerns and that you could not identify any further adjustments that would be needed. There were no restrictions in place for your back or elbow and your work was not aggravating your symptoms.
29.2.24 your main concern was a gastric issue. You did mention your back and knees, which caused you problems ascending stairs, you asked for a car park pass. There are no restrictions in place for your back or elbows
As explained in my letter of 6.7.23 the defendant is expected to argue that the role did not breach any occupational health restrictions that were in force and that as soon as they were notified that you had developed further symptoms, they acted reasonably, including referring you to the occupational health department and heeded their advice.
From consideration of the records that you have sent in it does appear that they have not breached any OH restriction at any time and that they acted reasonably each time you reported anything and put in place suitable restrictions.
I am awaiting the full records from the defendant and I will review the matter again then, however, at present the documents provided indicate to me that there may not be any reasonable prospects of success.
In 2016 I was taken ill at work, work sent me to hospital where my back was scanned. It was found I had Disc Bulges, Disc Infusions, Stenosis and Osteopetrosis of my Spine..
Management proceeded to place me on zones which aggravated my back.
On the 28th January 2020 my back gave way at home, I was in major pain and could not move. My DR signed me off for 2 weeks, then a further two weeks after that. AT the first two weeks, Occupational Health, ('OH') classed me fit for work, going against my DR's advice. I was threatened with the sack when I requested a second opinion. I contacted HR and they agreed with me, I needed a second opinion. On the 31st January I was assessed again, where OH states that they were agreeing with their original decision. Further to this, they stated that I was not in control of my pain. Management proceeded to place me on zones which went against OH's advice.
In October 2023, I was off from work due to my back, I requested a referral to OH. My manager who was also my manager in 2020 arranged this for me. My PL gave OH my old number of which I had not used since 2018, so there was several appointments missed.
I managed to contact Occupational health and an appointment was made on the 22st February 2023, some four months after my initial referral. There was four missed appointments due to my former manager putting my old phone number on my referral. Issues arising, Tennis Elbow and aggravated back injury.
My solicitor, who is free as part of Union subscription just sent me the following, would this be true? Please note, the 'Opportunity to sit' was put in place in 2020 due to my back injury.
Thank you for sending me the records.
I note your comments below – however, anything that was more than 3 years ago is “out of time” in relation to the 3 year limitation period.
When you started the claim you instructed us that it related to your back and elbow symptoms due to moving to the a new role in April 22 then moving to large panels in the summer of 22.
The OH reports from 20.2.23 onwards would therefore be relevant.
There were reports dated 20.2.23, 2.3.23, 9.3.23, 13.4.23, 9.10.23, 17.11.23, 12.2.24, 29.2.24.
In all of the reports there is a permanent restriction for an opportunity to sit, however, there are no restrictions in any of them regarding your back. You were assessed as fit for work with those restrictions.
Your elbow problem was first mentioned in 20.2.23 but you were deemed fit for work, with restrictions, whilst awaiting a workplace assessment.
By 2.3.23 you had been given exercises to do, and a temporary restriction was put in place regarding no sustained or heavy grip – until 31.3.23
On 9.3.23 a workplace assessment had taken place – this had happened within a reasonable time period following your first report of elbow symptoms. Alternative duties or stillages were advised. The temporary restriction regarding gripping continued. There is no restriction regarding your back.
On 13.4.23 you were reassessed, you were doing exercises and having physio. You were assessed as fit for your current role, the temporary restriction regarding gripping was extended. There were no restrictions in place for your back
On 9.10.23 you had been off work due to neck and arm pain. Your symptoms had eased, and you were carrying out your normal process. You were awaiting a scan. There were no restrictions regarding your back or gripping in place.
17.11.23 you gave an update regarding your neck and shoulder issues. You were still awaiting a scan. You stated that you could complete your job role without concern, as such it was deemed that no OH intervention was needed.
12.2.24 your main concern was diabetes, although you did mention your neck and back pain, which fluctuates, and your elbow. However, you stated that you could complete your current role without it aggravating your symptoms and that you only occasionally needed to take painkillers. You stated that there were no work-related concerns and that you could not identify any further adjustments that would be needed. There were no restrictions in place for your back or elbow and your work was not aggravating your symptoms.
29.2.24 your main concern was a gastric issue. You did mention your back and knees, which caused you problems ascending stairs, you asked for a car park pass. There are no restrictions in place for your back or elbows
As explained in my letter of 6.7.23 the defendant is expected to argue that the role did not breach any occupational health restrictions that were in force and that as soon as they were notified that you had developed further symptoms, they acted reasonably, including referring you to the occupational health department and heeded their advice.
From consideration of the records that you have sent in it does appear that they have not breached any OH restriction at any time and that they acted reasonably each time you reported anything and put in place suitable restrictions.
I am awaiting the full records from the defendant and I will review the matter again then, however, at present the documents provided indicate to me that there may not be any reasonable prospects of success.
Comment