Case Summary

Incident
Sean sustained a work related injury on the 15/07/2016. He was working on a refrigeration
unit as a general operative when the unit came off a jig and fell on his right hand. He was
wearing protective hand gloves when the incident occurred to permit him to work with his
thumb and index fingers however, the protective gloves he was wearing did not cover them.
He had to get stitches and was out of work for 2½ days. Sean also was left with a scar
approximately 2½ centimeters long. The scar is noticeable and visible from conversation
distance. It can also be irritable and discomforting especially in cold weather. The position
that the thumb is at is permanent and no further treatment was indicated.
Case Progression
The Personal Injuries Board decided it would not be appropriate to assess the claim as the
respondent did not pay them for dealing with the claim. Proceedings were issued on the
20/07/2017.
Case Settlement
The case was settled in the High Court on the 21/03/2018. Sean’s workplace failed in their
duty of care to him by not providing a work station that was safe and without risk, where the
components were not secured.
Description of Incident
A worker was sent to collect samples from a process plant atmidnight as there was a recent
process upset. For a representative sample,flushing of the sampling line was carried out
before taking the actualsample. The worker drained the flushing liquid into an open bucket
whichwould then be disposed into a waste pit. When the worker failed to locatethe hatch on
the pit cover for proper disposal of the liquid, he decided toopen the pit cover. While moving
the pit cover, the worker knocked overthe bucket. Contents from the bucket splashed onto his
arms, neck andlower half of his face. The worker suffered from chemical burns as result ofthe
incident.
Possible Causes and Contributing Factors
Medium
 The work area was insufficiently lit for the task and made itdifficult for the worker to locate
the hatch on the pit cover to carryout the disposal.
Man
The worker decided to open the pit cover to dispose the flushingliquid when he failed to
locate the disposal hatch.
While moving the heavy pit cover, the worker lost his balance andknocked over the bucket
containing flushing liquid from thesampling line.
 Management
Risk assessment was not performed; hence the job hazards were notidentified.
 There were no safe work procedures for proper disposal of flushingliquid.
 The worker was not provided with suitable PPE for protectionagainst chemical splash during
the sampling and disposal process.
Case study 1 - recycling
A recycling company was fined for failing to protect employees working with lead.  The
Court also ordered the company to pay costs totalling £25,483.
Workers were stripping some lead-sheathed copper cabling in sheds with inadequate
ventilation, putting them at high risk of lead exposure.  Workers were eating and changing
out of their contaminated overalls in the same area and were smoking on site, which raised
the risk of them ingesting significant levels of lead.
An investigation found that between October 2008 and July 2009, more than 90 workers were
significantly exposed to lead as a result of this process. Six workers showed signs of lead
poisoning and two workers needed hospital treatment.
When HSE's appointed doctor carried out tests, 23 workers were found to have significantly
high levels of lead in their blood. Of these, six people had symptoms of lead poisoning and
were referred to hospital and two were put on chelation therapy.
What went wrong?
HSE inspectors visited the site in April 2009 after an employee complained about insufficient
protection when working with lead. During the site visit, HSE found nothing had been done
to reduce lead exposure, with inadequate ventilation, face masks or respiratory equipment
available.
It also found that although gloves were provided by the company, workers wore their own
clothes, potentially spreading lead to other people and their own homes when they left work.
The company had not carried out blood tests or other health checks which are legally required
when working with lead.
Case study 2 - sheet metal
A sheet metal manufacturing company and its director were fined after workers were exposed
to high levels of lead at its factory.
Workers suffered the exposure as they cast molten lead into lead sheeting, sold for various
uses including roofing old buildings, such as churches.
Magistrates fined the company £10,000 and the director a further £10,000. The company was
also ordered to pay full prosecution costs of £10,556
What went wrong?
The investigation found that the company:
 failed to provide suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to health created by
work involving lead
 failed to adequately control exposure to lead
 failed to provide sufficient control measures, including lack of adequate personal
protective equipment (PPE), no adequate local exhaust ventilation system to remove
lead fumes from the workplace, no adequate clothes washing system and no adequate
hygiene controls
 failed to provide employees with suitable information, instruction and training
 failed to suitably investigate when occupational exposure level limits were exceeded
and action levels reached
 failed to provide air monitoring as regularly as required
Workers could have breathed in lead dust; absorbed the substance into their skin; or ingested
it orally, for example when they ate, drank or smoked a cigarette during breaks or even after
work hours without washing their hands.
Case study 3 - paint
A company carrying out restoration work was fined £10,000 after workers were poisoned by
lead paint. The company failed to identify that lead paint was present and failed to ensure
suitable precautions were taken whilst the old paintwork was sanded down and removed.
Consequently, workers inhaled and ingested lead dust over several months during the
summer of 2008.
The estate had not been fully redecorated since 1908 and workers had not been told that the
paint they were sanding down contained harmful lead.  Large amounts of dust were ingested
and inhaled by the workers who were wearing ineffective dust masks.
Two workers were hospitalised with abdominal pain and had to be treated with medication
which flushed the lead particles out of their system.  Five others were examined and found to
have suffered lead poisoning and the project was suspended while the area was cleared.  Dust
was also spread to workers' homes, potentially endangering workers’ families, from their
overalls.
What went wrong?
The company failed to identify that lead paint was present during a renovation project
The HSE Inspector said: ‘This case is important as it reminds primary contractors of their
responsibility and duty of care to others working on the site - even if they are not directly
employed by them.
Exposure to lead can result in significant and debilitating symptoms such as anaemia, nausea
and constipation and even nerve, brain and/or kidney damage.
There may be a view that lead is an historic problem, which was dealt with a long time ago.
This prosecution shows that this is not the case. Those involved in renovating old buildings
need to be particularly vigilant. Once dust or fume is generated from operations such as
sanding, paint burning it easily enters the body through normal breathing or swallowing,
where it accumulates causing debilitating symptoms.’
Case study 4 - glass maker
A glass maker was fined £3,600 after its premises were found to be contaminated by lead.
An unannounced inspection of the site, which produced lead cut crystal items, found the
levels of lead contamination to be above the occupational exposure limit and identified that
exposure to lead was not being adequately controlled.
The company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5 of the Control of Lead at Work
Regulations 2002 and Regulation 25(2)(b) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare)
Regulations 1992. As well as the fine, the company were also ordered to pay £7,000 costs.
What went wrong?
HSE's investigation concluded that the company had not carried out suitable and sufficient
risk assessments and that their employees were put at serious risk to their health as exposure
to lead was not being adequately controlled. Six improvement notices were served to ensure
that the company complied with the law.
The visit also found there wasn't even a place for workers properly to wash their hands or a
rest area for workers to have meals. In good weather they would go outside, but otherwise
they would have lunch in the factory, greatly increasing the prospect of them ingesting lead.

Case study 5 - tile maker

Nine workers at a ceramic tile factory had levels of lead in their blood above national safety
limits putting them at risk of serious health problems.  Tests carried out on staff following
HSE’s inspection found three female workers had blood levels at or above the suspension
limit – one of them significantly higher.  In addition, five women and one man working at the
site were found to be above the action level which alerts employers that a worker is
approaching the suspension level.
The company pleaded guilty to five breaches of the Control of Lead at Work Regulations
2002 and was fined a total of £35,000 and ordered to pay costs of £23,271.
What went wrong?
HSE’s investigations found the company failed to control its workers’ exposure to lead and
carry out a proper risk assessment for the work. It also did not measure the concentration of
lead in the air to which employees were exposed.
The firm also failed to provide medical surveillance for the workers and did not provide them
with sufficient information and training.
PPE means personal protective equipment or equipment you use to guarantee your (own)
safety.
Use PPE always and anywhere where necessary. Observe the instructions for use, maintain
them well and check regularly if they still offer sufficient protection. But when do you use
what type of protection?
These 7 tips will help you on your way.
1. SAFETY FOR THE HEAD

Wearing a helmet offers protection and can prevent head injuries. Select a sturdy helmet that
is adapted to the working conditions. These days you can find many elegant designs and you
can choose extra options such as an adjustable interior harness and comfortable sweatbands.
2. PROTECT YOUR EYES

The eyes are the most complex and fragile parts of our body. Each day, more than 600 people
worldwide sustain eye injuries during their work. Thanks to a good pair of safety glasses,
these injuries could be prevented. Do you come into contact with bright light or infrared
radiation? Then welding goggles or a shield offer the ideal protection!
3. HEARING PROTECTION

Do you work in an environment with high sound levels? In that case it is very important to
consider hearing protection. Earplugs are very comfortable, but earmuffs are convenient on
the work floor as you can quickly put these on or take them off.
4. MAINTAIN A GOOD RESPIRATION
Wearing a mask at work is no luxury, definitely not when coming into contact with
hazardous materials. 15% of the employees within the EU inhale vapours, smoke, powder or
dusk while performing their job. Dust masks offer protection against fine dust and other
dangerous particles. If the materials are truly toxic, use a full-face mask. This adheres tightly
to the face, to protect the nose and mouth against harmful pollution.
5. PROTECT YOUR HANDS WITH THE RIGHT GLOVES

Hands and fingers are often injured, so it is vital to protect them properly. Depending on the
sector you work in, you can choose from gloves for different applications:
 protection against vibrations
 protection against cuts by sharp materials
 protection against cold or heat
 protection against bacteriological risks
 protection against splashes from diluted chemicals.
6. PROTECTION FOR THE FEET

Even your feet need solid protection. Safety shoes (type Sb, S1, S2 or S3) and boots (type
S4 or S5) are the ideal solution to protect the feet against heavy weights. An antiskid sole is
useful when working in a damp environment, definitely if you know that 16,2% of all
industrial accidents are caused by tripping or sliding. On slippery surfaces, such as snow and
ice, shoe claws are recommended. Special socks can provide extra comfort.
7. WEAR THE CORRECT WORK CLOTHING
Preventing accidents is crucial in a crowded workshop. That is why a good visibility at work
is a must: a high-visibility jacket and pants made of a strong fabric can help prevent
accidents. Just like the hand protection, there are versions for different applications.
WORST-CASE SCENARIO
Prevention is better than cure. A smart thing is to be prepared for the worst. A classic first-
aid kit is no luxury but a first-aid kit for the eyes can also be an essential first aid. If the
employee comes into contact with chemicals, a safety shower is mandatory, so that he can
rinse the substances off his body at any moment.

PREVENTING ACCIDENTS: PICTOGRAMS

Not only is preparing your workshop for accidents a smart thing to do, it is even smarter to
organise your workshop in such a way that no serious accidents can take place. A simple way
to make your workshop safer is to use pictograms: indicating flammable materials, the
necessary use of hearing protection, indicating emergency exits …