IMD Solicitors acted for a factory worker who suffered a serious hand injury at work while operating a machine used to make cardboard boxes and packaging. At first, the injury appeared to be a crush injury with cuts to his left hand. However, it later developed into long-term chronic pain, which had a serious effect on his daily life and ability to work.
This matter shows how breaking workplace health and safety duties, especially by failing to provide proper machine guards and personal protective equipment (PPE), can lead to serious legal responsibility and substantial compensation, even where the injury may later seem minor.
Facts and Accident Circumstances
Our client worked on a machine used to make cardboard boxes. His job involved working very close to a moving part inside the machine. The employer gave him protective gloves, but they were too large. He raised concerns about the size, but he was told that no other sizes were available and that he had to keep using them.
A moving part of the machine also had no guard or protective cover. It was later said that the cover had been removed during servicing and had not been put back.
While he was using the machine, part of the oversized glove got caught in the moving mechanism and pulled his hand into it. He managed to stop the machine, but not before suffering a crush injury and cuts to his left hand.
When the client came to IMD Solicitors around three to four months after the accident, he was still suffering from ongoing pain, numbness, aching, and reduced use of his hand. He said he could not use it normally in everyday life.
Liability Analysis: Why the Employer Was Responsible
IMD Solicitors secured an early admission of liability because the safety breaches were clear and well evidenced.
1. Unsafe Machinery and Missing Guarding
A moving machine component operating without a guard represents a fundamental breach of workplace safety obligations. Employers must ensure that machinery is safe for use and that dangerous parts are properly protected.
The explanation that the guard had been removed during servicing and not replaced does not provide a defence. On the contrary, it indicates a failure in maintenance procedures. Safety checks should ensure that all protective mechanisms are reinstated before machinery is returned to operation.
2. Inadequate PPE: Oversized Gloves
Providing gloves that are excessively large creates a foreseeable risk of entanglement when working with moving machinery. PPE must be suitable, properly fitted, and appropriate for the task being undertaken.
The client had raised concerns about the gloves and was instructed to continue using them. This response demonstrates that the risk was foreseeable and undermines any suggestion that the accident was unavoidable.
3. Failure to Implement Basic Risk Controls
The missing machine guard and the unsuitable gloves show that proper safety checks and workplace safety steps were not in place.
This was not a difficult or technical case. The accident happened because basic safety measures, which should have been there to stop this kind of injury, were missing.
In workplace accident claims, employers often argue that the worker was partly at fault. In this case, the main reason for the injury was the employer’s failure to provide a properly guarded machine and suitable gloves. Even if it had been argued that the client was partly to blame, the employer would still have carried most of the responsibility because the danger was clear and the client had already raised concerns about the gloves.
Medical Evidence: From Crush Injury to Chronic Pain
Initially, the claim appeared consistent with a moderately serious hand injury that would improve over time. Many crush injuries and soft tissue injuries heal with treatment, although some residual stiffness, weakness, or altered sensation may remain.
IMD Solicitors arranged an orthopaedic assessment, with the expectation that recovery would occur within several months.
However, the client’s condition did not improve. Symptoms continued and intensified. A subsequent orthopaedic review did not identify a structural injury sufficient to explain the severity of the pain and functional limitations. Importantly, this did not indicate that the symptoms were not genuine; rather, it suggested that additional specialist input was required.
Following that advice, IMD Solicitors instructed:
• a psychologist to assess the psychological effects of the injury and pain experience
• a rheumatologist with expertise in pain medicine to assess the presence of chronic pain syndromes
The pain specialist diagnosed a chronic pain condition arising from the workplace accident. The medical evidence identified characteristics commonly associated with chronic pain disorders, including pain that is disproportionate to current physical findings, ongoing functional limitations, and physical indicators sometimes associated with chronic pain conditions, such as skin changes and reduced hair growth.
Such conditions are frequently misunderstood and are often disputed by defendants because diagnostic imaging may not demonstrate ongoing structural injury. For that reason, careful selection of medical experts, comprehensive symptom history, and consistent medical documentation are essential.
The defendant obtained its own expert evidence. Notably, the defendant’s expert confirmed the diagnosis, describing the condition as a textbook presentation of chronic pain. This agreement significantly strengthened both causation and valuation in the claim.
The prognosis indicated that the client might regain some level of function, but full recovery was unlikely. The expert also observed that resolution of the litigation might assist the client psychologically in moving forward, although it would not necessarily resolve the condition itself.
Practical Insights: What This Matter Demonstrates
1. Clear Safety Breaches Often Lead to Early Admissions
Where obvious failures exist, such as missing machine guards or unsuitable PPE, insurers frequently take a pragmatic approach and admit liability at an early stage.
2. Chronic Pain Claims Require the Appropriate Experts
Orthopaedic evidence alone may not be sufficient. Expert assessment from pain specialists is often decisive where symptoms persist beyond the expected recovery period. Psychological evidence may also be necessary to explain the ongoing impact of the condition.
3. Defendants Scrutinise Conditions Without Visible Injury
Where ongoing pain is not supported by a continuing structural injury, insurers often examine credibility and causation closely. Independent confirmation from a defendant’s expert therefore carries significant weight.
4. Claim Value Can Increase Substantially
An injury initially expected to resolve within months may attract moderate compensation. However, a chronic pain condition involving long-term functional limitations can significantly increase damages, including compensation for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, and financial losses where the client’s working capacity is reduced.
Conclusion
Chronic pain conditions can affect an individual’s ability to work and carry out daily activities. When supported by appropriate expert evidence, these conditions may substantially increase the value of a personal injury claim. For injured employees, early legal advice and thorough medical assessment remain essential to ensure that the full extent of the injury and its long-term impact are properly recognised and compensated.
This article guide is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. This article was created on 22/04/2026. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published.
