Successful Defence of Chemical Exposure Claim – A Case Study in Strategic Litigation

We are pleased to report a successful outcome in a recent chemical exposure claim, where our team effectively defended against allegations of workplace-related harm. The case involved a claimant who alleged historic, long-term exposure to hazardous substances while employed in an industrial laboratory. It was contended that emphysema had been developed because of the exposures, with a latency period of some 20 years post-exposure.

There were concerns from the outset of the claim as to the nature and extent of the claimant’s exposure, with a broad spectrum of hazardous agents alleged to have been worked with by the claimant, but limited details as to the manner in which she was exposed to each chemical and the frequency and duration of exposure.

The medical evidence that the claimant had produced, while supporting the claim, did not provide a precise explanation of the causal relationship between the exposures and the emphysema, which presented a key area for investigation for the defence.

Our approach was rooted in thorough investigation and strategic evidence gathering, utilising expert evidence. Due to the passage of time, there was difficulty in securing contemporary evidence, although occupational health records were sourced as well as some generic health and safety documents.

Part 18 requests were used to obtain further insights into the claimant’s alleged exposure in order to better analyse the merits of the claim. Thereafter, working closely with an occupational health expert, we secured evidence which undermined the extent of the claimant’s exposure and supported evidence of good control of all of the substances used by the claimant as part of her day-to-day activities.

With close analysis of the claimant’s medical records – and consideration of the presentation of the claimant’s scans in particular – the medical expert for the defence was not convinced of the claimant’s diagnosis or of an occupational cause of the lung disease, especially in view of the latency period between exposure and symptom presentation.

Ultimately, the claim was discontinued, as the weight of the evidence turned against the claimant regarding an occupational cause of her condition.

This case serves as a reminder that while chemical exposure claims can be complex and difficult, a focused defence rooted in factual evidence and expert insight can lead to a favourable resolution.