- Original Poster
- #1
Good Afternoon Everyone,
Looking for a third opinion whilst waiting for insurers solicitors to review. We have recieved a claim in March from a No Win No Fee solicitors firm using the claim portal and the Disease claim forms rather than injury forms.
Commercial roofing company (ltd co) completed a large project late last year. We paid another company (ltd co) for use of their labour to complete.
The working week was Mon-Fri with no weekend working owing to strict site rules.
One of their workers developed a rash on the lower leg during normal operations. The claimed 'exposure period' was Mon to Thursday of a particular week. The IP claims they were exposed to something in that window that produced a chemical burn to their leg. The IP worked the full 5 day week so worked the Friday with no inference of an injury or burn.
We were notified by text on the following Sunday night of a rash on a leg and the IP will not be in work Monday. I believe they went to Hospital and had it checked out.
Monday and Tuesday an investigation was initiated by ourselves and the building owner (Multi national corporation) and their qualified H&S Staff. Long story short - no chemicals present in the process, photos were handed over by supervisors showing the IP in the middle of the alleged exposure period wearing correct PPE and in fact wearing two layers of leg protection (Pants and plastic waterproof overpants) as it was light rain all week.
One of his colleagues saw fit to approach the clients H&S staff and claim the IP removed his work pants under the waterproof pants and the rash was caused by bad hygiene and sweating. This was recorded on the Clients internal H&S reporting system and is on the record.
The Tuesday afternoon of that week the IP was called by a director of the company for a welfare check and was asked two questions: Have you worked anywhere else Saturday and Sunday that would give rise to a rash on your leg as you did not report anything Friday and left site normally... He refused to answer. He was asked if he removed his pants from under the waterproofs at any time that week and refused to answer. The IP sent a series of voice memo's by text stating he was feverish and clammy, lethargic but believed it was not a chemical burn and that no chemicals were present and was a odds as to what it could be.
On the friday the Director received a text from the IP saying legs a lot better, I can walk good now I'll be back in work Monday. He never came in Monday and despite calls he never answered.
As this self certifying text was received stating he was fit to return Monday by his own declaration - it was deemed not required to file a RIDDOR report with HSE as any absence after the claimed return to work would be a different event.
The accident book was filled out on site as per normal procedure by our director with what details we had, and the dual investigations were closed NFA as we could not find a cause or any ongoing risk to the remaining workforce.
Several of the workforce joked about the IP working elsewhere on other jobs hence why he was not in work. He never answered his phone and the manager of his firm claimed he didnt know either.
Three weeks later out of the blue on the very last day of the project after word broke everyone would be getting a small bonus for their effort - the IP arrived for his shift with no prior warning from himself. He made no mention of any injury or disease and was happy working back on site in the very conditions he has now claimed caused injury. When asked where has he been - he declined to answer.
The project ended early December. Late Feb 26 and we decided to pay all our bills and close the company down as we had no more contracts. A DS01 strike off was filed.
However now I am led to believe due to this claim we have to file a DS02 to suspend the strike off as the claimant could become a debt of the company...
We believe the claim as detailed by his solicitor in the claim forms to be fundamentally dishonest and fraudulent on the following points (Correct me if you think otherwise):
No chemicals used in the process - Causation is denied? By his own voice notes as well he admitted no chemicals so why claim for a chemical burn? He was photographed dated and time stamped wearing the correct PPE, dual layer so contact with the leg almost impossible. Did he take his work pants off underneath and sweat causing a rash in breach of the signed risk assessment - a point he refused to answer.
Refusal to disclose his wherabouts on the Saturday or Sunday?
21 days of incapacity is disputed as he sent the text dated and time stamped saying he was fit to return on the Monday but didnt. His colleague on condition of anonymity disclosed a FB post by the IP's partner of him at a christmas event bang in the middle of the alleged period of incapacity showing him walking smiling and carrying his son on his shoulders at the event...
On his return on the last day he was reminded on more than one occasion to read the accident report in the accident book and sign but he chose not to.
The solicitor has stated in the claim forms where asked has the IP recieved treatment and rehabilitation for the injuries/disease they selected yes but then when asked for details of the treatment and rehab wrote TBC... How can you select yes but put TBC and not have the details from the IP - looks like a blatent attempt to inflate the claim.
The solicitor claims future rehab is required and will be assessed by their medical expert but put TBC for this as well when asked what is required.
There are more points found in this claim but this is the crux of it. I do believe there is more than enough to make the IP's solicitor close the claim.
What do you think? TIA
Looking for a third opinion whilst waiting for insurers solicitors to review. We have recieved a claim in March from a No Win No Fee solicitors firm using the claim portal and the Disease claim forms rather than injury forms.
Commercial roofing company (ltd co) completed a large project late last year. We paid another company (ltd co) for use of their labour to complete.
The working week was Mon-Fri with no weekend working owing to strict site rules.
One of their workers developed a rash on the lower leg during normal operations. The claimed 'exposure period' was Mon to Thursday of a particular week. The IP claims they were exposed to something in that window that produced a chemical burn to their leg. The IP worked the full 5 day week so worked the Friday with no inference of an injury or burn.
We were notified by text on the following Sunday night of a rash on a leg and the IP will not be in work Monday. I believe they went to Hospital and had it checked out.
Monday and Tuesday an investigation was initiated by ourselves and the building owner (Multi national corporation) and their qualified H&S Staff. Long story short - no chemicals present in the process, photos were handed over by supervisors showing the IP in the middle of the alleged exposure period wearing correct PPE and in fact wearing two layers of leg protection (Pants and plastic waterproof overpants) as it was light rain all week.
One of his colleagues saw fit to approach the clients H&S staff and claim the IP removed his work pants under the waterproof pants and the rash was caused by bad hygiene and sweating. This was recorded on the Clients internal H&S reporting system and is on the record.
The Tuesday afternoon of that week the IP was called by a director of the company for a welfare check and was asked two questions: Have you worked anywhere else Saturday and Sunday that would give rise to a rash on your leg as you did not report anything Friday and left site normally... He refused to answer. He was asked if he removed his pants from under the waterproofs at any time that week and refused to answer. The IP sent a series of voice memo's by text stating he was feverish and clammy, lethargic but believed it was not a chemical burn and that no chemicals were present and was a odds as to what it could be.
On the friday the Director received a text from the IP saying legs a lot better, I can walk good now I'll be back in work Monday. He never came in Monday and despite calls he never answered.
As this self certifying text was received stating he was fit to return Monday by his own declaration - it was deemed not required to file a RIDDOR report with HSE as any absence after the claimed return to work would be a different event.
The accident book was filled out on site as per normal procedure by our director with what details we had, and the dual investigations were closed NFA as we could not find a cause or any ongoing risk to the remaining workforce.
Several of the workforce joked about the IP working elsewhere on other jobs hence why he was not in work. He never answered his phone and the manager of his firm claimed he didnt know either.
Three weeks later out of the blue on the very last day of the project after word broke everyone would be getting a small bonus for their effort - the IP arrived for his shift with no prior warning from himself. He made no mention of any injury or disease and was happy working back on site in the very conditions he has now claimed caused injury. When asked where has he been - he declined to answer.
The project ended early December. Late Feb 26 and we decided to pay all our bills and close the company down as we had no more contracts. A DS01 strike off was filed.
However now I am led to believe due to this claim we have to file a DS02 to suspend the strike off as the claimant could become a debt of the company...
We believe the claim as detailed by his solicitor in the claim forms to be fundamentally dishonest and fraudulent on the following points (Correct me if you think otherwise):
No chemicals used in the process - Causation is denied? By his own voice notes as well he admitted no chemicals so why claim for a chemical burn? He was photographed dated and time stamped wearing the correct PPE, dual layer so contact with the leg almost impossible. Did he take his work pants off underneath and sweat causing a rash in breach of the signed risk assessment - a point he refused to answer.
Refusal to disclose his wherabouts on the Saturday or Sunday?
21 days of incapacity is disputed as he sent the text dated and time stamped saying he was fit to return on the Monday but didnt. His colleague on condition of anonymity disclosed a FB post by the IP's partner of him at a christmas event bang in the middle of the alleged period of incapacity showing him walking smiling and carrying his son on his shoulders at the event...
On his return on the last day he was reminded on more than one occasion to read the accident report in the accident book and sign but he chose not to.
The solicitor has stated in the claim forms where asked has the IP recieved treatment and rehabilitation for the injuries/disease they selected yes but then when asked for details of the treatment and rehab wrote TBC... How can you select yes but put TBC and not have the details from the IP - looks like a blatent attempt to inflate the claim.
The solicitor claims future rehab is required and will be assessed by their medical expert but put TBC for this as well when asked what is required.
There are more points found in this claim but this is the crux of it. I do believe there is more than enough to make the IP's solicitor close the claim.
What do you think? TIA
