The council employee was allocated the new boots and after walking 30 miles during the course of two normal working days, discovered that they were extremely uncomfortable and causing him a great deal of foot pain. The man returned the boots, requesting replacements, but there were none available at the time.

It was another four months before his employer took any action and adequate replacement safety footwear was provided. During that time, the refuse collector wore his own training shoes to work; a situation that he thought was not acceptable. Apart from the safety aspect, the man said that he was concerned that his employer did not seem to see the urgency of the matter and so he sought the help of a solicitor and his union to address the issue.

The injured employee obtained evidence from his doctor to state that he was suffering from planatar fascilitis; a swelling of the heel caused by his badly fitting work boots, but his employer refused to recognise the medical documentation as evidence of the condition and would not accept liability.

It was not until a specialist consultant podiatrist was asked to submit a more detailed report, that the council chose to offer an out of court settlement of £3000 which the injured worker chose to accept.

It was alleged that her employer, a pharmaceutical company, was supposed to carry out safety checks in the vicinity of the area concerned every 12 months and yet for whatever reason, recommendations were either ignored or the checks were not implemented at all.

This went on for approximately five years, but it was a well known issue with employees who regularly complained or reported the water leakage but nothing was done to fix it. At the time of her fall, the employee already had a joint replacement operation pre-booked and her payout of £3500 reflected the amount of time that she would have to suffer between the work accident and her pre-arranged surgery.

A spokesman for the injured woman said that the leaking refrigerated cooling racks were an accident waiting to happen, but the pharmaceutical company immediately came up with the compensation and did not put up any argument against the claim.

Following her accident at work, the employee went on to have successful joint replacement surgery as scheduled despite her broken elbow and she said that she is very pleased with the outcome and more confident using her arm since the operation.

He was working on a bottle making machine at the factory when he slipped on a mixture of water and oil that had accumulated on the floor. Machinery doors were open and the man’s shirt sleeve snagged as he fell, dragging his arm into the moving machinery.

The man received surgery on the injury after his accident at work but after three months off work his doctors decide there was nothing more that could be done to improve his condition.

He took a job at another company and decided to see specialist consultants in France for a second opinion, where they were able to provide diagnostic tests that are not available in Britain.

The surgeons in France discovered that the maintenance worker had suffered a compartment injury when his arm was pulled into the bottle making machine. This is what happens when a muscle swells to such a size that the muscle sheath cannot support it.

He was offered keyhole surgery on his arm to reduce the swelling and allow his arm to heal more efficiently. The injured man said that although his arm will not get better completely, he is pleased with his projected prognosis and the fact that the compensation awarded will pay for the private medical treatment that he received in France.

A factory that specialises in perforated paper products, such as those used in the manufacture of tea bags, came under scrutiny in the case of a man who lost his life in a fatal accident at work.

Hydraulics in a lowering device were found to have been initiated accidentally from outside the device whilst the man was still working inside the enclosure of a paper slitter rewinder machine, resulting in his death.

There had initially been some suggestion as to who ought to be held accountable for the horrific accident and several possibilities were put forward. The conclusion was that the tragedy was the result of a misunderstanding during the deployment of the machine as the operator did not know that the man was inside and the man in question could not possibly have known that someone would be likely to press the start button outside the machine whilst he was still inside.

The level of compensation awarded to the family was a reflection of the circumstances of the worker’s death alongside a difficult court case where it had to be proven that the worker showed no negligence that could have caused his own death and that it was the deceased’s co-worker’s misunderstanding and mistake that was responsible for his death in the workplace.

The man eventually won damages of £111,000 for his injuries because the accident left him with long term health problems and he now has to use a walking stick and is not fit enough to return to a manual job.

The Wearside labourer suffered multiple fractures to his left leg when a colleague accidentally ran a forklift truck into him as he loaded pallets near to where the driver was working.

An investigation found that the vehicle’s reversing lights and audible warning system were not functional at the time of the accident and had not been checked. The injured man was wearing ear defenders and so he could not hear how close the forklift truck was to him before the accident occurred.

As a result, the truck crushed the worker’s ankle, leg and foot, causing fractures to his fibula and a metatarsal. He then had to undergo numerous operations to fix the bone damage and a skin graft to repair the soft tissue.

The 58-year-old said that he had planned to work up until retirement age, but the accident had prevented him from doing so. He said he is now unable to work in a manual job because of his leg injury, but the compensation payout will guarantee him an income over the next few years.

The 56-year-old was asked to help repair a faulty machine that separates concrete and water from aggregate and sand, but he told a senior colleague that he thought someone experienced in that particular line of work should carry out the job instead of him.

His spokesman said that the man’s employer put him in a dangerous position and failed to give proper guidance or instructions as to the operation of the machine that he had little or no knowledge of. Despite voicing his concerns, the worker was encouraged to carry out the task when it should have been done by someone with the relevant experience and authority.

The electrician was told to continue with the repair and as a result, his hand was trapped inside the moving machinery parts causing severe injuries and crushing his hand.

This accident at work caused the worker to undergo extensive treatment and surgery to repair his damaged hand and he claimed that the severity of his injuries means that he is no longer able to work as an electrician or take part in his hobbies of gardening and playing music. He also said he still finds it difficult to sleep and suffers nightmares relating to the industrial accident.

A machine operator in Wales seriously injured his thumb during a factory accident because he did not have proper hand protection for his job using a seamer machine.

The 58-year-old suffered nerve damage because he had not been given the right type of industrial gloves. On the day of his accident, the man was clearing cans from the machine as it had become backed up. He picked up one of the cans and noticed that it was damaged and had an extremely sharp edge, which promptly cut through his inadequate gloves and thumb.

The machine worker claimed that if he had been given the correct gloves for the job, the accident would not have happened, as the can would not have cut through to his thumb. He also said that the equipment he was working on was not properly maintained and this also contributed to the accident.

As a result, the factory worker need several weeks off work immediately after the accident and more time off a few months later. The man said he made the claim against his employer because of the financial hardship that the injury caused him and the fact that he still suffers pain, reduced grip, numbness and pins and needles, all of which affect his work and home life.

The injured man said that he was off work for three weeks after the accident and claimed that instead of his employer giving him sick pay, his employment was terminated permanently.

With the help of his union, the worker successfully made a claim against his employer stating that warnings had been given to the company about the faulty machinery that caused his injury and that proper parts to make the machine safe had been requested. The company had allegedly failed to respond to the requests for parts and also did not keep the area around the machine clean. Tools were stacked against the broken machine making the surrounding area hazardous as well.

Initially the employer denied any wrong doing, but the matter was settled out of court and the former employee was paid £4000 compensation for his damaged hand.

Even though these things had been brought to the attention of the injured man’s employer, on the day of his accident, oil was on the floor as he tried to replace a broken guard causing him to slip and suffer a work related injury.

Health and safety rules state that grinding tools should be operated using protective gear and when the accident occurred, there were not sufficient safety measures in place that could have prevented it from happening, or lessened the extent of his injuries if correct procedures had been followed.

The sub contractor, originally from Glasgow, was awarded £7300 compensation after his accident at work because despite making his foreman aware that the restricted environment would mean he could not wear his protective visor, he felt he was told to continue regardless of the issue.

The man’s visor had been in the way and his arm kept knocking it off as he tried to complete the job as requested, meaning that his face was no longer protected.

His work related facial injury required 20 stitches to three deep cuts leaving permanent scarring to the man’s face and his employer admitted liability settling out of court with a £7300 payout.

The injured worker said he brought the case in order to highlight the importance of health and safety in the workplace and his accident compensation would also help to reimburse him for the amount of time that he had to take off work due to his injury.

The protective cage had allegedly been damaged in an earlier accident and instead of being properly fixed or replaced; a piece of string had been used to temporarily repair it. The worker involved in the second accident had not been informed about the damage to the fan’s cage.

Five years after his accident at work, the employee managed to claim damages of £20,000 against his former employer. The company was fined £20,000 by the Health and Safety Executive for breaches that related to the incident.

The scaffolder suffered post traumatic stress from the accident as well as flashbacks and needed extensive counselling to overcome these problems. Physically, he required two operations on his leg, a prosthetic lower limb and several physiotherapy sessions.

He said that he was pleased with his compensation award and that the money would help to pay for the privately funded prosthetic limb that he needs to walk and help him continue on his path towards a relatively normal life again, although he will never be able to go back to his previous profession due to health reasons.