Claims For Stress in The Workplace

Claims For Stress in The Workplace

Cases of stress in the workplace are on the rise every year and it is becoming a costly problem for all businesses. Studies have shown that approximately 1 in 3 of all workers experience high level of stress and a quarter of all workers state that their job is the main cause of stress in their lives. The latest figures released by the Health and Safety Executive show that absences from work cost the economy over £12 billion and of this it is estimated that stress related illness and absence now costs in the region of £5-7 billion.

So, what is workplace stress and what can you do about it? The Definition of workplace stress is the harmful physical and emotional response that occurs when there is a poor match between job demands and the capabilities, resources, or needs of the worker. If you have suffered extreme stress as a result of your job then you may be able to claim compensation however, proving such claims is notoriously difficult as the evidential burden on anyone making a claim is extremely high. Another of the main problems in making a claim for stress is proving foreseeability and you need to ask the question: is it reasonable to suggest that the employer could have foreseen the injury?

At this time, the most important previous case dealing with stress in the workplace is the Court of Appeal case of Hatton V Sutherland (2002) which involved a secondary school teacher who suffered from depression and a nervous breakdown. The Court ruled that in this case the school had done all they could reasonably be expected to do and the main reason for this decision was that the claimant did not complain or give any indication that she was beginning to suffer or that she could not cope with her work. This case set the current legal precedent and set a number of criteria and guidelines for future cases which include the following:

• The ‘threshold’ question is: Was the kind of harm to the employee reasonably foreseeable?
• Whether the harm was foreseeable depends on what the employer knows, or ought to know, about the individual employee. Because of the nature of mental disorder, it is harder to foresee than physical injury. Employees are entitled to assume that employees can cope unless he/she knows of, or ought to know, of a particular problem.
• The test is the same for any type of job – there are no occupations regarded as intrinsically dangerous to mental health.
• Factors likely to be relevant in answering the threshold question include the nature and extent of the work done by the employee and what signs, if any, are given by the employee relating to impending harm of health.
• Employers are entitled to take what they are told by employees at face value and they do not have to make searching enquiries.
• Indications of impending harm must be plain enough for the employer to realize that he should do something about it.
• An employer will only be found to be in breach of a duty of care towards an employee if they fail to take reasonable steps to avoid them.
• If an employer offers a confidential advice service and access to appropriate counseling services it is unlikely they will be found in breach of duty.
• The claimant must show that the employer has breached their duty of care and that this breach of duty contributed to the harm suffered.
• Any compensation awarded will take account of any pre-existing disorder or vulnerability of the claimant and consider whether the claimant would have suffered a stress related injury in any event.

The above criteria and guidelines set in the case of Hatton V Sutherland (2002) are the current legal precedent in this type of claim and this means all future cases are decided based on these. Clearly, and as previously stated, claims for stress related illnesses are very complex and difficult to prove however, they can be won and it is important that anyone suffering from stress as a result of their job seeks professional legal advice from a firm of solicitors, such as ourselves, who will consider the merits of your case and, if we consider it can be successful, take the case on a genuine no-win, no-fee basis and provide a high level of service to ensure that you get the right result.