Following a surge in UK cases of workers diagnosed with silicosis, including 50 cases and 4 deaths, the Health & Safety Executive has this month released guidance providing employers involved in quartz cutting for kitchen worktops with information on protective workers.
Silicosis is a deadly-but-preventable lung disease caused by inhaling silica dust, primarily affecting workers in industries such as mining, construction, and manufacturing. The Health & Safety Executive recognises silica as the biggest risk to construction workers after asbestos and a recent paper has identified a severe and progressive form of silicosis linked to the cutting of artificial or engineered stone or quartz used regularly fitting kitchen worktops.
The new guidance from the HSE clearly states that dry cutting of stone is no longer acceptable, bringing the UK in line with other countries such as Australia where the practice is already banned. It also outlines measures to help prevent the condition such as wet cutting, misting and personal protective equipment and has announced a regime of workplace inspections.
As awareness of this condition increases, personal injury specialists can expect a new wave of litigation for workers exposed to this harmful substance without the right protection.
Who is most at risk of developing the disease?
Those at risk are workers inhaling silica dust. They may be working on construction or demolition, glass manufacturing, stone masonry, laving and mining. Typically, a fine dust called respirable crystalline silica (RCS) is released into the air during the course of cutting or drilling work leading to inhalation. Whilst the condition usually follows exposure over a number of years, high levels of exposure over a shorter period can cause acute silicosis as shown in the litigation involving those cutting quartz kitchen worktops. Unfortunately, the cases identified in the UK appear to be affecting younger workers in their 20s, 30s and 40s.
Who may pursue a claim for damages for silicosis?
The legal cases focus on the failure of employers to assess the risk of workers’ exposure to the silica dust and to take steps to minimise the risk by means of ventilation and protective equipment, such as masks, as well as their failure to provide warnings, training and health surveillance. Workers who have been exposed to the dust as a result of their employers’ failures and who then develop the condition linked to that exposure may pursue a claim for damages.
Cases against the employer would be based on breaches of their common law duty of care to employees. This duty is informed by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, the Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
What may be claimed for?
Unfortunately, there's no cure for silicosis. The condition is progressive and is potentially fatal. The claimants in the litigation south of the border have suffered an acute form of the disease which has caused severe disability with the only potential treatment being lung transplantation. A client who has suffered injury linked to exposure to silica dust may claim damages for pain and suffering. They may have a loss of earnings if they have required time off work or if they can no longer work or are only able to work in a reduced capacity. The client may be disadvantaged if attempting to find work in comparison to a worker without the condition. They may require care and assistance due to their medical condition and have incurred other expenses. If the condition is fatal then family members may have a claim for damages arising from the death to reflect the loss of their loved one and any loss of financial support.
What are the time limits to be aware of?
As is the case with other occupational disease claims, the claim for damages must be resolved or an action raised in court against the party at fault no later than three years from the date of diagnosis of the condition. If the exposure to the harmful substance is continuing, then the three years runs from the last date of exposure.
While the cost advantages of using artificial stone compared to natural stone means this work is in demand, employers must remain alert to the serious risks posed to their workers and institute robust protection against the risk of injury.
