Vic woman, UK firm settle thalidomide case

18 July 2012 By

'Worst child poisoning case since thalidomide'A multimillion dollar compensation payment to a Melbourne woman whose mother took the drug thalidomide during pregnancy will provide her with care for the rest of her life, her lawyers say.

UK company Diageo, which distributed thalidomide, has settled with Lynette Rowe, who was born without arms and legs.

There was no settlement with the drug’s manufacturer Grunenthal.

Ms Rowe remains the lead plaintiff in a class action against Grunenthal as negotiations with more than 100 other thalidomide victims in Australia and New Zealand continue.

Ms Rowe, 50, wept as her father Ian spoke on her behalf.

“The things she has achieved are absolutely amazing” he told reporters on Wednesday.

“You don’t need arms and legs to change the world.”

Ms Rowe’s lawyer Peter Gordon said the settlement was “more than adequate” to compensate Ms Rowe in the future.

She had struck a blow for “thalidomiders” all over the world, he said.

“We are really proud of Lynette, we are really proud of her parents Wendy and Ian” he said.

Mr Gordon described thalidomide as “the greatest pharmaceutical disaster in history“.

Thalidomide drugs were distributed in Australia and New Zealand around 1960 and 1961 by Distillers, which became part of Diageo in 1997.

Mr Gordon said executives at Diageo were “good and responsible corporate citizens“, but that Grunenthal had taken a position they deplored.

The drug was withdrawn in Australia in 1961.

(Source: News, 18 July 2012)

About Rushmore Forensic

Andrew Firth is a forensic accountant who has conducted numerous investigations and other forensic accounting engagements in both Australia and overseas. He specialises in economic loss and loss of earnings calculations, personal injury compensation and other forensic accounting services for commercial disputes.  He is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and has appeared as an Expert Witness in numerous jurisdictions.

 

 

 

Filed Under: Compensation Claims, Personal Injury Tagged With: ,

Engineering company fined for workplace accident

1 June 2012 By

Engineering company fined for workplace accident

An engineering company has been fined $187,500 for a workplace accident that left a man partially paralysed.

The Industrial Relations Court fined Downer EDI Works for failing to implement guard railings around a machine that is involved in the preparation of asphalt.

The court found there were also limited safety protocols regarding the cleaning of the machine, the task that the worker was undertaking at the time of the accident in May 2009.

The victim, who had worked for the company for eight years, slipped into the pit during a break in cleaning and was crushed between the incline conveyor belt and drum roller.

He sustained partial tetraplegia, significant brain injuries, broken bones and nerve damage.

In his judgment, Magistrate Michael Ardlie said the incident could have led to death.

“The employee is highly unlikely to be able to work again or to be able to live independently” Mr Ardlie said.

“It is clear, and it was not disputed, that in the circumstances the risk was that the employee could have suffered fatal injuries.”

He added that the company had shown regret and had taken action to ensure proper protection and safe work practices were carried out throughout its Dry Creek plant.

“It went further to ensure that Australia wide all its plant was reviewed to ensure that guarding was adequate” he said.

Downer EDI Works was fined $187,500 and ordered to pay $1000 in costs and levies.

Source: Adelaide Now, 6 Jan 2012

About Rushmore Forensic

Andrew Firth is a forensic accountant who has conducted numerous investigations and other forensic accounting engagements in both Australia and overseas.

He specialises in economic loss calculations, personal injury compensation and other forensic accounting services for commercial disputes.  He is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and has appeared as an Expert Witness in numerous jurisdictions.

Filed Under: Personal Injury Tagged With: ,

High Court rules on potato chip: $580,000 for slip injury

18 May 2012 By

The High Court has found retail giant Woolworths negligent in failing to remove a greasy potato chip from the floor of one of its shopping centres.

As a result Kathryn Strong, an amputee who walked with the aid of crutches, fell heavily to the floor of a food court area at the Centro Taree Shopping Centre in September 2004.

She suffered a serious spinal injury.

Ms Strong sued Woolworths in the NSW District Court, claiming its negligence caused her injury as the area was inspected more than four hours before the accident.

She was awarded damages of $580,299.

Woolworths took the case to the NSW Court of Appeal, disputing its responsibility for the injury.

That court ruled in favour of Woolworths, finding Ms Strong had failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that its negligence caused her fall.

As the chip was probably deposited at lunchtime it could not be concluded that, had there been a dedicated cleaning of the area every 15 minutes, the accident might not have occurred, the court found.

The High Court today ruled the NSW Court of Appeal finding was wrong.

In a majority decision, four of the court’s judges said reasonable care required inspection and removal of slipping hazards at intervals not greater than 20 minutes in the sidewalk sales area, which was next to the food court.

On the balance of probabilities, Ms Strong would not have fallen but for the negligence of Woolworths.

The decision restores the original verdict from the NSW District Court.

Commenting on the decision, Majed Issa, a personal injury lawyer with Maurice Blackburn, said the High Court decision had wide-reaching implications for people injured in public places who under the law must show that their injury was caused by negligence of a third party.

“In this case the High Court agreed that shopping centres and stores should have in place a reasonable inspection and cleaning system that would detect and remove hazards that could cause injury within a reasonable timeframe.” Mr Issa said.

In this case, the court determined that a hazard should be identified and removed if it has existed for at least 20 minutes or longer.

“This obligation also exists if stores have merchandise outside their own physical store, especially in an area where food and drinks are being consumed.”

Mr Issa said Ms Strong, who was injured almost eight years ago, would have spent enormous sums of money in medical and rehabilitation costs.

“Injuries in shopping centres are more common than you would imagine and there is a big cost to the community and individuals when people are injured through no fault of their own” he said.

(Source: SMH, March 7, 2012, AAP & Louise Hall)

About Rushmore Forensic

Andrew Firth is a director of Rushmore Group. He has conducted numerous investigations and other forensic accounting engagements in Australia, Singapore, the UK, Thailand, Hong Kong, Vanuatu, and the USA.

He specialises in economic loss calculations, personal injury compensation and other forensic accounting services for commercial disputes.  He is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and has appeared as an Expert Witness in numerous jurisdictions.

 

Filed Under: Personal Injury, Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,