Database

Bullying has many parallels with chronic stress; its victims report higher levels of depression, anxiety and health complaints and it is, on the whole, subjective. Causal direction is unknown; providing opportunities for legal defence. Social forces within a given workplace can act to decide that a given duty holder is a bully and that certain persons are bullied. Claims can be thus contagious. Evidence from: AM Hansen et al. Journal of Psychosomatic Research (2006) Vol. 60 p 63 -72 “Bullying at work, health outcomes, and physiological stress response” In this study of 437 employees 5% reported having been bullied during the past 6 months. Among these, there were statistically significant higher scores on measures of somatisation (perception of symptoms with no organic cause), depression, anxiety and mental ill health. Further detail: 6#1 34

Duty of care standards tend to be based on fatigue management rather than injury prevention. This study develops an elaborate method of risk assessment, but it is unclear whether or not it would meet a balance of probabilities test. Use of precautionary duty of care standards could lead to claims inflation: the pains don’t go away and breach of duty is commonplace. Evidence from: RA Werner et al. J Occup. Rehab. (2005) Vol.15#1 p 27 – 35 “Predictors of Upper Extremity Discomfort: A Longitudinal Study of Industrial and Clerical Workers” Claims frequency magnification is unlikely given that the wrong duty of care standards are already in place. Further detail: 6#1 33

The research could form the justification for specific guidance on cleaning work and musculoskeletal discomfort. Introduction of such guidance would probably stimulate claims making. Cleaners are often supplied by agencies. Evidence from: V. Woods et al. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics (2006) Vol.36 p 61 – 72 “Musculoskeletal ill health amongst cleaners and recommendations for work organisational change” Further detail: 6#1 32

Ergonomic factors were found to be predictive of back pain, as was fear of pain. The results for pain of a type that could be related to injury were not presented. There were some doubts about the exposure variables, which were measured by self report. Evidence from: A Van Nieuwenhuyse et al. OEM (2006) Vol.63 p 45 – 52 “The role of physical workload and pain related fear in the development of low back pain in young workers: evidence from the BelCoBack Study; results after one year of follow up” Large changes in liability exposure are unlikely unless fear of injury is made more likely. Further detail: 6#1 31

Evidence from: Health Protection Agency RCE-1 Feb (2006) “Power Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Melatonin and the Risk of Breast Cancer” An interaction between exposure to power frequency emfs and the production of the hormone melatonin has been the subject of 20+ years of research. Motivation for this research was provided by the possibility of a role of melatonin in the risk of breast cancer. The conclusion: In aggregate, the evidence to date does not support the hypothesis that exposure to power frequency emfs affects melatonin levels or the risk of breast cancer.

This high powered study failed to find any significant association between occupational exposure to low frequency EMFs and acoustic neuroma. Evidence from: UM Forssen et al. Am J Ind Med (2006) Vol.49 p 112 – 118 “Occupational Magnetic Field Exposure and the Risk of Acoustic Neuroma” There were significant numbers of cases and controls in all exposure groupings. The precision of the risk estimates was therefore unusually high. There were no statistically significant associations between exposure and outcome. Further detail: 6#1 29