header-logo header-logo

18 September 2008 / David Cartwright
Issue: 7337 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

A quantum leap?

Settling damages for latex allergies may involve a trip to court in future, says David Cartwright

Foxton v Wakefield West Primary Care NHS Trust is the first case where damages for a latex allergy were assessed at trial. Mrs Foxton was was aged 45½ at the date of a two-day assessment of damages hearing. She was employed by Wakefield West Primary Care NHS Trust as a community staff nurse from March 2003.

In 2004 she developed a latex allergy as a result of admitted negligence of the defendant. The allergy forced Mrs Foxton to give up her career as a community nurse, she also suffered a degree of psychological injury and contended that she would never be able to work again. However, the defendant contended that she could have returned to work by April 2006 and on that issue alone the main difference between the parties concerning quantum was that of loss of earnings.

Latex allergy is permanent. From 2004 Mrs Foxton suffered a number of upsetting reactions caused by her proximity to latex,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley adds insurance mergers and acquisitions partner to London office

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll