WHILE CERTAIN types of tool have long been recognised as being associated with the onset of HAVS, over the years the range of tools has increased, and continues to do so.
When Strange, Strange and Gardner was initially consulted in a matter concerning the operation of a cutter used in vehicle window removal, databases did not indicate the type of tool to be recognised as giving rise to HAVS.
Measurements on a similar tool were eventually taken and the vibration levels proved to be higher than previously thought; but timings for use, ie trigger time, indicated the overall vibration exposure was unlikely to be excessive.
Therefore, the prospects for a successful outcome for the claimant were considered to be low without the benefit of fully representative testing.
However, the claimant was adamant as to the cause of his condition and he arranged finance for a full inspection to be undertaken.
At the inspection the vibration levels of the actual tools used by the claimant were measured and were found to be of high magnitude. Furthermore, the type of work undertaken by the claimant actually necessitated longer periods of use of the tools than originally indicated. It came as no surprise that soon after the inspection the defendant conceded the engineering evidence.
There are instances where an inspection of the work is now not possible – or is not undertaken due to cost considerations – so that estimates of a claimant’s exposure is based on the evidence and reference to databases. This case highlights the importance, wherever possible, of an inspection of the work and measurement of the vibration levels of the actual tools used being undertaken – it being the only way in which full assessment of a claimant’s exposure can be made.