ESB worker's elbow injury claim

An ESB worker who claims he has developed tennis elbow and an injury to his thumb as a result of having to operate a "dangerous…

An ESB worker who claims he has developed tennis elbow and an injury to his thumb as a result of having to operate a "dangerous" tool for crimping cables, has brought a High Court action for damages.

Kevin Doyle, Dromawling Road, Beaumont, Dublin, claims he has suffered a recurrent injury to his elbows and right thumb from using a "Pfisterer" compression tool, a large bolt-cutter type instrument used on heavy duty cables.

He is suing the ESB for damages and injury. The ESB has denied the claim and pleads he did not suffer injuries while using this compression tool and that any injuries which he may suffer were not sustained during the course of his employment.

Mr Doyle, in his claim, says he first went to his doctor complaining of pain and discomfort in his right elbow in 1991.

READ MORE

The doctor diagnosed tennis elbow and prescribed anti-inflammatory medication.

In 1992, he went back to his doctor complaining of a painful left thumb and was referred to a consultant rheumatologist in Beaumont Hospital where he was diagnosed as have tenosynovitis (inflammation of the tendon) and was treated with a steroid injection.

Although a small amount of pain persisted, he did not have any other problems until October 1995 when he again complained of painful and tender elbow joints. He complained the pain was aggravated by having to lift and stretch his arm in the course of his work.

He claims he went to another consultant rheumatologist who diagnosed him as suffering from tennis elbow.

Mr Doyle claims the consultant, after being shown the Pfisterer tool, was "amazed" that it was available at all because of the tremendous strain placed by it on the muscles of the forearm.

Mr Doyle said he later underwent physiotherapy which eased the pain in his elbows and thumb and he also changed his job within the ESB.

Mr Doyle claims the ESB was negligent in requiring him to use this tool over a number of years which they knew or ought to have known was dangerous.

The company had failed to take steps to ensure it was not dangerous and had failed to advise him of the dangers of using it, he contends. The ESB is also alleged to have breached its duties under the Factories Act 1955, the Safety in Industry Act 1980 and the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989.

The case continues before Mr Justice John Quirke.