When the story is about RSI you can find any number of contradictory headlines.

There are the ones about the High Court judge saying that RSI doesn't exist; there are others about companies and government departments paying out large sums to successful claimants. The press has hardly been objective; many seeking compensation for this complaint are themselves journalists.

It is time to separate fact from fiction and to put to rest the myth of the so-called RSI epidemic.

Let's go back to basics. Any employee bringing a claim has to demonstrate that he or she has suffered an injury; that it is work-related; and that it could have been avoided had the employer taken reasonable steps to protect the employee. The court then has to consider whether the employee's own conduct has contributed to the harm suffered.

In the context of RSI, most employees allege aches and pains along the upper limbs. Can a medical adviser determine the actual condition? Often they can. Conditions such as tenosynovitis or peritendinitis crepitans are well defined and can be, but are not necessarily, work-related. The difficulty is that, in many cases, there is no clearly defined physiological condition - merely complaints of pain and discomfort. These symptoms might persist.

Has the claimant suffered an injury? The pain and discomfort exists. But what is the injury? Often medical examinations can find no specific condition. Thus it is only the symptoms that are treated, as no underlying cause has been established. This was precisely the case when Rafiq Mughal made his claim against Reuters. He failed to identify his condition and therefore failed to show that he had suffered a work-related injury.

Does the condition relate to employment activity? Machine or keyboard operation seems to relate to the pain and discomfort. However, the employee will have worked for many months without such problems. What has triggered the so-called RSI? Even a simple suggestion - that it must be work-related because it is pain in the hands and the person works a keyboard - is open to question when it becomes clear that the condition does not improve when the person ceases to work with a keyboard.

But even if it is difficult to understand an employee's complaint, has it been ignored? Has attention been paid to the employee to see what could be done to improve the situation?

Systems taking complaints or concerns into account have to be in place. Generally speaking, if an employer can demonstrate a sympathetic and safety-conscious manner, that counts for a great deal.

Many large employers have devoted time, energy and funding to assessing the risk of their staff developing work-related upper limb disorders.

Targets and bonus systems, which may require employees to over-exert themselves, are becoming less popular. Larger employers regularly provide advice on posture. They provide an efficient system to enable employees to adapt their work stations to suit their particular need. Adjustability is the key word in terms of selecting new equipment, chairs and computers and keyboards.

Early diagnosis of problems is vitally important. Specialists should be used. In many cases a cause, which is not related to the workplace, is identified.

By listening and adjusting, often at nominal costs, the problem and the potential claim may be avoided.

David Rogers and Tania Sless

David Rogers and Tania Sless are partners specialising in personal injury law at international insurance law firm Davies Arnold Cooper.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances from David Rogers or Tania Sless (Tel. 071 936 2222) or John Webster (061 839 8396).
Copyright Mondaq Ltd 1995 Tel +44 171 820 7733.