13 October 2017 Edition 203
BC DISEASE NEWS A WEEKLY DISEASE UPDATE
CONTENTS
PAGE 2
Welcome
PAGE 3 Welcome QOCS Exceptions in Multiple Defendant Cases: Bowman v Welcome to this week’s edition of BC Disease News. Norfran Aluminium Limited & Ors (B54YJ494) This week, we analyse the case of Bowman v Norfran Aluminium Limited & Ors (2017), which rules on the application of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) PAGE 6 in cases where claimants have mixed success at trial and provides clarity for successful defendants. Additionally, we look at the judgment in Whalley v Provisional Damages Denied For Advantage Insurance (2017) which provides guidance on the cost Deterioration of Psychological consequences when a Part 36 offer is accepted after its expiry period. Condition: XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust [2017] EWHC Elsewhere, we discuss a recent example of whiplash fraud, committed by 2318 (QB) dissolved claimant firm, Asons. The Government are currently attempting to crack down on this issue by drafting new legislation. PAGE 7
Expired Claimant Part 36 Offers In the world of scientific research, we discuss the latest studies linking long working hours with the risk of strokes. and Costs: Whalley v Advantage
Insurance (2017) In this week’s feature, we delve into the science behind head injuries in the
football industry, both historic and present; especially as news outlets have PAGE 10 begun reporting cases of former professionals who have either died from, or Particulars of Claim and Relief been diagnosed with, degenerative brain diseases, allegedly as a result of From Sanctions: Chelsea Bridge heading footballs. Apartments Ltd v Old Street Homes Ltd (2017) Any comments or feedback can be sent to Boris Cetnik or Charlotte Owen.
Invalid Service Appeal Granted As always, warmest regards to all. Invalid Service Appeal Granted: Barton v Wright Hassall [2016] EWCA Civ 177 SUBJECTS
PAGE 11 QOCS and Claimant Mixed Success at Trial – Provisional Damages and
Psychiatric Injury – Assessed Costs or Fixed Costs and Claimant Part 36 Offers – Asons Liable for Costs, Following Particulars of Claim and Relief From Sanctions – Email Claim Form and Valid Fraudulent Whiplash Claim Service – Asons and CMC Liable for Costs for Fraud – Asbestos Exposure Outside
of Work – Increasing Diesel Fumes Claims – Working Hours and Atrial Fibrillation – PAGE 12 Brain Injury and Football. New Analysis of Non- Occupational Asbestos Exposure and Pleural Mesothelioma
Diesel Fume Claims on the Rise?
PAGE 13
Longer Working Hours Increase Risk of Stroke
PAGE 14
Feature: Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in Football
PAGE | 2
QOCS and Mixed Success In Multiple Defendant Cases: Bowman v Norfran Aluminium Limited & Ors (Newcastle Upon Tyne County Court, 11th August 2017)
In edition 138 of BC Disease News, we included a feature in which we discussed the exceptions to claimants’ qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) protection. This week, we address the topic of QOCS and multi-defendant claims, particularly where the claimant is successful against one or more defendant but fails against the remaining defendant. Can the successful defendant seek to enforce an award of their costs against the damages recovered by the claimant from the losing defendant?
This is an area of uncertainty within QOCS, with little case law. We commented in edition 138, that there was nothing within the rules to suggest that the defendants who are recovering their costs must have made damages payments themselves.1
However, this stance has been contradicted by the recent County Court decision in, Bowman v Norfran Aluminium Limited & Ors (2017),2 ruling on the implementation of (QOCS) in instances where there are multiple defendants to litigation – an area of legal murkiness.
Before looking at the substance of the judgment, let us remind ourselves of the rules surrounding QOCS. The main two provisions being CPR r.44.15 and r.44.16:
PAGE | 3
So then, r.44.15 deals with situations where the court’s permission is not required to enforce a costs order against the claimant and r.44.16 covers instances where the court’s permission is required.
In Bowman, the claim was one for hand arm vibration syndrome and carpal tunnel syndrome, arising out of the claimant’s employment as a trim shop operative, from 2003 onwards. The claim was served on three defendants on 5 October 2015. The relationships between the defendants were such that the 2nd defendant had purchased assets belonging to the 1st defendant and, one month later, a separate company emerged – the 3rd defendant.
The 2nd defendant argued that it had, at no point, employed the claimant. It described its alleged one month involvement as being the period between the transaction of assets from the 1st defendant (June 2009) and the date at which the 3rd defendant began trading (July 2009). The 2nd defendant argued that its details appeared on the claimant’s payslip because it provided payroll services to the 3rd defendant until April 2010. After having exchanged witness evidence, wherein the 1st and 3rd defendants confirmed that the 2nd defendant had not employed the claimant, the claimant discontinued the claim against the 2nd defendant, on 22 November 2016.
The claimant went on to recover £20,000 at trial against the 1st and 3rd defendants. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant sought a costs award in its favour, under CPR 38.6, which states:
The notes to the White Book 2017 (p.1195), provide further detail on when the court may ‘order otherwise’ under this rule. It states that the claimant must show: 1) A change in circumstance; and 2) Some form of unreasonable conduct on the part of the defendant.
Considering this rule, HHJ Freedman, noted:
‘It follows that in the absence of a change in circumstance and some form of unreasonable conduct, there will be no good reason to depart from the usual rule that a claimant who discontinues must pay the costs of the party in respect of whom the action has been discontinued’.
The claimant submitted that when the 2nd and 3rd defendants confirmed that the claimant was not employed by the second defendant, this constituted a ‘change of circumstance’.
As to unreasonable conduct, the claimant pointed to the fact that the 2nd defendant failed to comply with the two requests made in June 2016 for evidence to demonstrate the claimant was not in fact employed by the second defendant. He also relied upon the fact that at no stage did the second defendant seek to strike out the claimant’s claim but, rather, allowed it to proceed for over a year until service of witness statements.
HHJ Freedman, rejected both of these submissions and concluded that there was therefore ‘no basis for departing from the usual rule that the claimant should pay the costs of the second defendant upon service of the notice of discontinuance’.
PAGE | 4
Having concluded that the claimant was liable to pay the second defendant’s costs, the next question which arose was whether the claimant was entitled to QOCS protection?
Generally, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee has been in support of the application of QOCS in discontinued actions, justifying any alleged unfairness to defendants as ‘consistent with the general policy aim of QOCS protecting Claimants who are not, in broad terms, successful’. This view is in line with the accepted dicta that QOCS is a ‘self-contained code’ (Wagenaar v Weekend Travel Limited [2015] 1 WLR 1977) and that there can be no discretion to make any order that does not flow from QOCS.
The 2nd defendant argued that it was entitled to set off its costs against the damages to be paid by the 1st and 3rd defendants to the claimant. It was submitted that on a plain reading of r.44.14, a defendant is entitled to recover its costs from the claimant out of damages paid to the claimant by another defendant. Further, where r.44.13 refers to ‘proceedings’ the 2nd defendant took this to mean the entirety of the claim, i.e. against all three defendants.
Finally the defendant argued that in r.44.13 the words ‘any orders for damages’ must cover orders for damages made against other parties to the proceedings – as such this meant that because the 2nd defendant’s claim for costs arises from the same proceedings for personal injury as the claim against the 1st and 3rd defendants, the 2nd defendant should be entitled to recover its costs from the damages paid out to the claimant by the other two defendants.
The rules in their entirety state:
However, the claimant argued that the underlying premise of the QOCS scheme is that where a claimant is ordered to pay the costs of a defendant, the claimant never actually pays those costs but instead, sets them off against the damages payable by that defendant. It was argued, therefore, that this meant that the set off could only be in relation to the proceedings against the 2 nd defendant and since there was to be no payment of damages by the 2nd defendant, there was nothing to set off.
Additionally, the claimant argued that if damages paid by the other defendants was taken in to account, there would in fact be no set off but rather a payment, which is not permitted under the QOCS regime.
PAGE | 5
Addressing this issue, the judge agreed at stage. They therefore fall to be treated for decision and is therefore, not binding. But it para 35, that the concept of a set-off those purposes as separate proceedings’. will, as a matter of judicial comity, be imports a mutuality of liabilities whereby followed by other judges unless they are there are cross claims between a paying Interpreting these comments, HHJ convinced it is wrong. party and a receiving party. As such, he Freedman concluded that ‘the word concluded: proceedings, in the context of QOCS must There is no indication at this time that the refer to individual claims and not the decision will be appealed. ‘…the whole idea of a set-off, in the context entirety of the cation’. of liability for costs, is that a claimant should The full decision can be accessed here. not be required to pay anything but rather If there were technically no proceedings the defendant pays less or nothing at all. brought against the 2nd defendant, due to That being the position, it is difficult to see the discontinuance, there would be no Provisional Damages how such would be consistent with the proceeds of the claim to set-off. The result Denied For claimant in the instant case handing over would need to be a ‘payment’ instead, all of her damages to the second which could not be described as a set-off Deterioration of defendant to meet any order for costs. In and are not permitted under the QOCS short, it would not be a set-off but rather the regime. Psychological claimant would be paying money to the second defendant’. Further, HHJ Freedman understood the Condition: XX v phrase, ‘any order for damages’, in CPR Whittington Hospital NHS Although this conclusion appears to be 44.14(1), as the differentiation between determinative of the issue in this case as a types of damages orders, such as periodic Trust [2017] EWHC 2318 whole, HHJ Freedman felt it necessary to payment orders and lump sum orders, as consider the meaning of the word opposed to covering damages paid by (QB) ‘proceedings’, in CPR 44.14(2), within the ‘any defendant’. context of QOCS, to clarify the scope of In this recent clinical negligence decision, costs orders which could be made against In relation to the wording of the rules, he the High Court held that it was not claimants. As, if it refers to the whole action, held at para 38: appropriate to award provisional damages then, he stated, there may at least have for the deterioration of the claimant’s been an argument that r.44.14(1) could ‘Moreover, if it were the intention of the psychological injury. On the evidence, any cover awards of damages made by other Rules Committee that one defendant could deterioration in the claimant's defendants. recover costs from a claimant out of psychological condition was likely to be damages paid by another defendant, I temporary and treated successfully in In doing so, he turned his attention to the think it very likely, if not inevitable, that such about a year so that it could not be comments of Lord Sumption in the Supreme would have been spelt out. In effect, this properly regarded as "serious" under the Court case of Plevin v Paragon Personal would be providing a qualification to what test for provisional damages. Finance [2017] UKSC 23 (we discussed this would be generally understood as being a case in edition 180 of BC Disease News – set-off and therefore it would need to be The facts of the case were that, as a here). At paragraph 20, his Lordship stated: clearly stated in the Rules’. consequence of the defendant’s admitted negligence in failing to detect signs of ‘The starting point is that as a matter of As a result, the judge concluded that: cancer from smear tests and biopsies from ordinary language one would say that the 2008-2013, the claimant developed proceedings were brought in support of a ‘…I have come to the clear conclusion that, cancer of the cervix for which she required claim, and were not over until the courts on a proper construction of the QOCS rules, chemo-radiotherapy treatment that led to had disposed of that claim one way or the a claimant cannot be required to pay the infertility and severe radiation damage to other at whatever level of the judicial costs of one defendant from damages her bladder, bowel and vagina. The trial hierarchy. The word is synonymous with an paid to her by another defendant. To make was quantum only. action. In the cases cited above, relating to such an order, to my mind, makes a the awarding or assessment of costs, the mockery of the whole notion of a set-off’. The claimant made an application for an ordinary meaning is displaced because a award of provisional damages in respect of distinct order for costs must be made in Whilst this will no doubt be a disappointing the risk of deterioration in her psychological respect of the trial and each subsequent interpretation of the QOCS regime for condition as a result of failed surrogacy. appeal, and a separate assessment made defendants, it does provide some certainty of the costs specifically relating to each in an area where it was much needed. However, this is a first instance County Court
PAGE | 6
The power to order provisional damages is deteriorating was 30-40% and would only until after considering the claimant’s witness found in section 32A of the Supreme Court arise if the surrogacy failed. This he said, evidence that the defendant accepted the Act 1981, and may arise where there is: was a real rather than fanciful risk as per the Part 36 offer one month after expiry. The first limb of the test. In relation to the second claimant sought costs, and the issue in ‘a chance that at some definite or indefinite limb, he stated: dispute was whether the claimant’s costs time in the future the injured person will […] were limited to fixed costs for the entire develop some serious disease or suffer ‘It is difficult, in my judgement, to hold that action, or whether they were entitled to some serious deterioration in his physical or a deterioration which may be severe but assessed costs for the period after their offer mental condition’. which is likely to be temporary and treated expired to the date the offer was accepted successfully in about one year can properly by the defendant. The Judge, identified the test for the be regarded as serious under the test for awarding of provisional damages as provisional damages. This is not one of The claimant was hopeful that District threefold, namely: those rare cases where the normal rules for Judge Besford would rely, in part, on his the awarding of damages should be previous judgment in Sutherland v Khan, 1. Whether the risk of deterioration is displaced’. also a late acceptance case, heard in April real rather than fanciful; of 2016, in which he followed the decision 2. Whether the deterioration will be Instead, the judge concluded that the of Broadhurst v Tan [2016] EWCA Civ 94. In serious; and claimant could be compensated within the favour of indemnity costs, at paragraph 19, 3. Whether the case is a proper one normal rules – especially as there would be he stated: in which to depart from the normal evidential difficulties surrounding the origins rule of awarding damages on a of the psychological condition and its ‘... if there was no incentive or penalty there once and for all basis at the date exacerbation. would be little point in a defendant of trial. accepting offers early doors, as opposed The full judgment can be accessed here. to waiting immediately prior to trial. It also As a result of the failure in diagnosis, the seems ... unsatisfactory that there should be Claimant suffered from mild depression penalties flowing if you do not beat an offer and anxiety though this had been Expired Claimant Part at trial, whereas if you settle before trial successfully treated. Dr. Gessler, a 36 Offers and Costs: there are none’. consultant psychologist who was called on behalf of the Claimant, said that: Whalley v Advantage He went on to say, at paragraph 20, that it is unnecessary for ‘the court ... to find that ‘… by the end of her treatment, the Insurance the defendant has, in some way been Claimant was normal though she guilty of inappropriate behaviour or considered that there was a risk that the In edition 125 of BC Disease News (here), we conduct capable of censor before ... Claimant might, if the surrogacy was not first discussed the subject of costs in cases [considering] making an order for costs on successful, revert to ruminative and intrusive no longer proceeding under the RTA or an indemnity basis’. thoughts resulting in a condition worse than EL/PL Protocol, where Part 36 offers were to begin with.’ rejected, or accepted after expiry. There is Do assessed costs automatically flow from conflicting case law on whether parties late acceptance? This would represent some of the symptoms should receive costs assessed on an of post-traumatic stress disorder but not the indemnity, standard, or fixed costs basis THE LAW ON COSTS WITHOUT JUDGMENT full condition. Although Dr. Gessler said that when defendants reject a claimant’s Part the response to failed surrogacy, if such a 36 offer, only to be ordered to pay a larger Under CPR 36.13, the costs consequences response occurred, might be catastrophic, sum of damages at trial. Similar questions of late acceptance [36.13(4)(b)] are she thought that the condition would not be have also been raised over costs discussed, as follows: long lasting, expressing the view that consequences following belated treatment, as it had been in the past, would acceptance of Part 36 offers, where the be successful. She said that she would case does not reach trial. The latter hope that after one year of psychological scenario is the main subject of this article. treatment no further treatment would be needed. In the recent case of Whalley v Advantage Insurance (County Court at Kingston-Upon- Considering the medical evidence, the Hull, 5th October 2017), the claimant made judge, concluded that the risk of the an offer to accept split liability, which claimant’s psychological condition expired on 30 December 2015. It was not
PAGE | 7
Part 36.13 does not make any specific provision for the basis upon which costs may be assessed where a claimant Part 36 offer is accepted post-expiration. Instead, it is at the discretion of the judge where no agreement between the parties has been reached, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case and the factors listed at CPR 36.17(5), including:
In Sutherland, District Judge Besford interpreted that assessment of CPR 36.17(5) criteria, required him to consider whether allowing costs on the indemnity basis under CPR 36.17(4) would be unjust. CPR 36.17(4) entitles the claimant to:
CPR 36.17(4) relates to judgments obtained against defendants, which are at least as advantageous to the claimant as the claimant’s Part 36 offer [CPR 36.17(1)(b)]. This is a different scenario to the present case, which we covered in edition 125 of BC Disease News.
Tension has arisen, in past case law, surrounding the application of CPR 36.17 and CPR 36.13, both of which are subject to CPR 45 section IIIA, where fixed costs cases fall out of the RTA or EL/PL Protocol. It states, in rule 45.29B:
PAGE | 8
However, in the case of Richardson v Wakefield Council3, HHJ Gosnell stated, by analogy with Broadhurst, that costs orders available could not be fixed by the rules, even though assessed costs and fixed costs are ‘conceptually different’.
In any event, CPR 45.29J allows for ‘exceptional circumstances’, in which ‘the court will consider a claim for an amount of costs (excluding disbursements) which is greater than the fixed recoverable costs referred to in rules 45.29B to 45.29H’. Both Part 36 scenarios discussed in this article have often seen claimants cite this provision as a reason to depart from the matrix of fixed costs, with varying success.
In Whalley, the claimant sought, firstly, entry of judgment, in order to benefit from CPR 36.17(4), despite the fact that damages had already been agreed and paid. This failed, as the action was deemed to have already been concluded.
Secondly, in the alternative, the claimant argued that, since Part 36 is a ‘self-contained code’, it should have primacy over Part 45 fixed recoverable costs, applying Broadhurst. However, the recent decision of Anderson4 held that the ‘reference in CPR 36.17(5) to CPR 36.17(3) and (4) was nothing more than draughtsman shorthand’. ‘Part 36 is the general rule and Part 45 the specific rule ...’ To read the costs consequences of a more advantageous judgment, where indemnity costs are clearly signposted, as identical to the consequences of late acceptance, was held to be inaccurate. Hence, Broadhurst could not apply to a late acceptance case.
Thirdly, in the alternative, the claimant submitted that the defendant’s delayed acceptance constituted an ‘exceptional circumstance’. However, at paragraph 90, the judge found, that, on the definition of `exceptional', the ‘claimant had not surmounted the hurdle’.
Therefore District Judge Besford was forced to admit, at paragraph 47, that his reasoning in the Sutherland v Khan case, at paragraph 20, ‘is unsupported and can no longer stand’.
He went on to say, at paragraph 91:
‘I have come to the conclusion that the decision I initially reached in Sutherland is not supported from a detailed analysis of the Rules and Case Law. Unless there are `exceptional circumstances' in accordance with CPR 45.29) or arguably where there has been conduct `out of the norm' to justify indemnity costs, the Fixed Cost regime applies to the circumstances within CPR 36.13(4)(b)’.
Reversing the necessity for Part 36 offers to maintain a ‘carrot and stick’ incentive, depicted in Sutherland, District Judge Besford accepted that '`unfair' consequences will unfortunately occur as part of the `swings and roundabouts' of modern litigation’, adopting the decision of HHJ Wood in the recent case of McKeown v Venton5, as follows:
‘For now, it may well be that precise fairness as to costs in individual cases is sacrificed on the altar of certainty which Part 45 has introduced’.
PAGE | 9
The full judgment of Sutherland can be case, so as to enable [the court] to deal Particulars of Claim’. However, on this point, found here. justly with the application including [factors the judge said, at paragraph 35: (a) and (b)]’. The full judgment of Whalley can be found ‘... by no stretch of the imagination is it here. Deputy Master Cousins, handing down possible for the Brief Details of Claim to judgment on Chelsea Bridge Apartments, somehow be considered of sufficient covered all three elements of Denton, at standing to constitute Particulars of Claim. Particulars of Claim and paragraph 31. This pleading is generalised in its nature, Relief From Sanctions: and is lacking in intellectual rigour’. WAS THE DEFAULT SERIOUS AND SIGNIFICANT? Chelsea Bridge ‘I find that the failure on the part of the Invalid Service Appeal Apartments Ltd v Old Claimants to serve the draft Particulars of Granted: Barton v Wright Claim at the latest by 6th January 2017, Street Homes Ltd (2017) and not to have done so in fact until at least Hassall [2016] EWCA Civ 22nd March 2017, is a serious and When a party fails to comply with a rule, significant failure’. 177 practice direction or court order, they may be sanctioned, unless of course, they WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE DEFAULT? In recent editions, we have analysed obtain relief. The assessment criteria in an several cases where service was in dispute. application for relief from sanctions, is the ‘I find that the failure to appreciate the Last year, the Court of Appeal heard the Denton v T H White [2014] EWCA Civ 906 3- requirement to serve the Particulars of case of Barton v Wright Hassall [2016] EWCA stage test. We have previously reported on Claim by a certain date, or at all, is not a Civ 177, which ruled that alternative service cases of default, brought before good reason; I further find that it is not a of a claim form, via an email attachment, application hearings, but never before good reason to assert that the Claimants’ could not be regarded as good service. have had we discussed the fate of a failure solicitors were under pressure at the time in The decision was briefly mentioned in to serve the Particulars of Claim on time, the conduct of the case on behalf of their edition 136 of BC Disease News (here) and pursuant to CPR 7.4. This was the CPR rule clients’. we can now report that the case will be breach in Chelsea Bridge Apartments Ltd v heading to the Supreme Court in Old Street Homes Ltd, handed down last WERE THERE ANY OTHER RELEVANT November. month. CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE DEFAULT? The relevant facts of the case were such In this case, the Particulars of Claim should ‘As to the Third Stage of Denton, in all the that, on 24 June 2013, a day before the have been served on 6 January 2017, but circumstances of the case, and in claim form expired, the claimant, a litigant this deadline was not met. A subsequent particular having regard to (a) the efficient in person, sent an email to the defendant peremptory order was made, requiring the conduct of litigation at proportionate costs, solicitor, which was ‘await[ing] service of the claimant to make an application by 24th and (b) the enforcement of compliance claim form and particulars of claim’. The March 2017. The claimant filed an with the CPR, I find that the Claimants have relevant documents were included as application for an extension of time, or, in not and are not conducting the litigation attachments, although this was not an the alternative, relief from sanctions, with efficiently, or at a proportionate cost. I accepted method, as it had not been draft Particulars in an amended format, on agree with the submissions made on behalf previously indicated by the defendant in 22 March. The full Particulars were sent on of the Defendants that it was the Claimants writing that they were willing to accept 30 March. who embarked upon this litigation and service via email, pursuant to CPR 6.15. chose to do so with an ill-thought-out and Vos LJ, at paragraph 24 of the Denton v T H precipitate application on a without notice The defendant solicitor disputed service, in White [2014] EWCA Civ 906 judgment, basis attempting to seek a freezing order, a response dated 4 July, and introduced the test, as follows: which was then not granted’. consequently, the claimant filed an application under CPR 6.15(2), ordering the ‘The first stage is to identify and assess the The claimant had submitted that if court to validate service, as the four month seriousness and significance of the “failure ‘Particulars of Claim’ been used instead of time limit, from the date of issue, had to comply with any rule, practice direction the words ‘Brief Details of Claim’, there elapsed. or court order” which engages rule 3.9(1) ... would have been no breach, ‘as the The second stage is to consider why the pleading was done with sufficient default occurred. The third stage is to particularity so as to constitute a proper evaluate “all the circumstances of the
PAGE | 10
At the application hearing, the claimant argued that, although he was ‘aware that some solicitors did not accept service of documents by email’, the fact that the defendant solicitors’ website omitted any reference precluding service by email, was taken to mean that they accepted service by that method.
However, in finding that this did not amount to good service, Floyd LJ also dismissed the claimant’s submission that this reflected any ‘technical game-playing’ and disputed ‘that any criticism could be levelled at the conduct of the defendant or its solicitors...’
The Supreme Court, in the Barton appeal, will consider whether the Court of Appeal, in deciding against validating service, breached the claimant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and deprived the claimant of an effective remedy under Article 13, while also examining whether costs, recovered by the defendant solicitor, were ‘disproportionate to the work undertaken’.6
The full Court of Appeal judgment can be accessed here. The appeal is due to be heard in the Supreme Court on 22 November 2017 and is scheduled to last no longer than a day. We will report on the outcome of this decision in due course.
Asons Liable for Costs, Following Fraudulent Whiplash Claim
Last week, details of a fraudulent whiplash claim have been revealed, which exposes ‘gross’ malpractice on the part of a Director of the dissolved claims management company, Accident Claims Assistant Limited (ACA), and the now defunct law firm, Asons Solicitors. Asons’ successor, Coops Law, was shut down by the SRA earlier this year in June, on the grounds of ‘fundamental dishonesty’.
In July 2012, Nitin Trehan, the claimant, was involved in a motor accident. Details of his accident were passed on to Haroon Karim, who was a Director at the ACA. The claim was then sold on to Asons for £300.
In September 2014, the claimant did not appear in Court in respect of his motor claim. As a result, his claim was dismissed and he faced a costs bill of £7,744.48, payable to LV=, the defendant insurer.
When LV= attempted to enforce this costs order, the claimant contented that he was unaware that a claim had been brought in his name.
Accordingly, the claimant filed proceedings to set aside the costs order and pass the responsibility on to Asons, purporting to act on his behalf.
It soon transpired, at the hearing to set aside costs that this was a fraudulent claim.7
Judge Godsmark QC heard strong evidence, provided by a handwriting expert at trial, which confirmed the forgery of the claimant’s signature by Mr Karim which were found on the claim form, the particulars of claim and an authority to release medical records.
Meanwhile, Asons were found to be non-compliant with the most basic of anti-money laundering procedures – verifying the identity of the claimant as the supposed client. They also falsified correspondence with the claimant, as demonstrated by cut and pasted signatures on photocopied documentation, to disguise non-compliance with court timetabling, casting ‘grave reservations as to whether the dates on file copy letters can be relied upon’.
Asons submitted that liability should lay with Mr Karim, since they only had limited contact with the claimant. However, Asons and Mr Karim were held jointly liable for LV=’s costs, which were in the region of £40,000.
Reflecting on the ‘improper, unreasonable, and negligent’8 conduct of the claimant law firm, Judge Godsmark QC stated:
‘That a solicitors’ practice can purport to act for a client they have never met or had direct contact with is startling. That those solicitors feel able to commence litigation on behalf of an individual they have never met or had direct
PAGE | 11
[contact] with, without any funding PMM in those with non-occupational asbestos controls, particularly in relation to arrangement in place, is frankly appalling. exposure to asbestos was 5.9, with a chrysotile. When I add to that the manner in which the possible range from 4.4 to 8.7. The relative litigation was pursued with falsification of risks for household (exposure in the home, We will be looking at the issue of whether the dates of letters (also to deceive) the e.g. from the clothing of a co-habitant who chrysotile is safe in future editions of BC picture is deeply disturbing’.9 works with asbestos) and neighbourhood Disease News. (exposure in the environment, e.g. from Celebrating their success, Clare Lunn, living close to an asbestos mine) exposures Director of Fraud at LV=, expressed that: were 5.4 (range: 2.6 to 11.2) and 6.9 Diesel Fumes Claims on (range: 4.2 to 11.4), respectively. the Rise? ‘For too long corrupt lawyers, medical experts and other professional enablers The reviewers also sought to determine risks In September, the Guardian reported an have tried to evade justice by hiding from exposure to different fibre types. For apparent increase in legal claims relating behind a veneer of respectability. LV = will chrysotile, or white asbestos, the relative risk to workplace exposure to toxic diesel now recover our costs from Asons Solicitors for neighbourhood exposure was 3.8, with fumes. and Mr Karim and not the innocent third a range from 0.4 to 38.4. The range of party, who could easily have been possible values for the relative risk includes We have previously reported, in edition 192 burdened with the cost allowing Asons and 1.0, which means that it is possible that (here), 140 (here), 100 (here) and 17 (here) Karim to walk away scot free. As an industry, people with environmental exposure to of BC Disease News, on the health risks we need to continue to take a tough stance chrysotile are at no greater risk of PMM than associated with workplace exposures to against such conduct which will act as a those with no exposure. For mixed fibre diesel fumes, classified by the International deterrent to stop such practices’.10 exposure and exposure to amphibole Agency for Research in Cancer as fibres, (blue and brown asbestos), the carcinogenic to humans, and the potential It is possible that this was not an isolated relative risks are 8.4 (range: 4.7 to 14.9) and for litigation. incident of fraudulent activity. Indeed, it 21.1 (range: 5.3 to 84.5) for neighbourhood has since emerged that Mr Karim sold 24 exposure, respectively. The relative risk of Dan Shears, Health and Safety Director for claims per month to various solicitors and PMM from household exposure to chrysotile the GMB Union, was reported in the may not have been alone in doing so. was 4.0, with a range of 0.8 to 18.8, which Guardian as saying: also raises the possibility that this exposure
may not increase the risk of PMM. The ‘We strongly believe it [workplace exposure New Analysis of Non- relative risks for household exposure to to diesel fumes] is a major problem. It needs mixed fibres and amphiboles are 5.3 Occupational Asbestos a test case and then there will be an (range: 1.9 to 15.0) and 21.1 (range: 2.8 to increase in claims. It’s almost like the early 156.0) respectively. Exposure and Pleural days of asbestos ... There are potentially lots
of people who have unnecessarily suffered Mesothelioma This analysis shows that asbestos exposure premature death who may have been at home and in the environment can affected by industrial exposure. We are A recent literature review and meta- increase the risk of PMM. However, the risks now with diesel in the same place we were analysis has produced estimates of the from chrysotile exposure were much less with asbestos in the 1930s’.12 relative risk of pleural malignant than the risks from mixed fibres or mesothelioma (PMM) from non- amphibole fibres. Claims are expected to be brought by occupational exposure to asbestos11. The workers in garages, bus depots, ferries and study was published in the British Medical The risk posed by chrysotile is a warehouses, where the risk of exposure to Journal: Occupational and Environmental controversial global topic. It has long been hazardous fumes is greater. Claimants are Medicine at the end of September. argued by some that chrysotile is ‘safe’ and likely to allege breaches of health and does not cause asbestos diseases such as safety regulations, pursuant to the Control A meta-analysis involves pooling data from asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. of Substance Hazardous to Health a number of studies to generate ‘overall’ This position has caused much controversy Regulations 2002 (COSHH), under which all estimates of risks. In this case, 18 studies and many worldwide public health bodies, employers must adhere to their duty to from 12 countries, comprising 665 PMM such as WHO, say that chrysotile kills prevent exposure to dangerous cases, met the criteria for inclusion. Among thousands of people and call for the substances. these studies, there were 13 estimates of the complete ban on the use of all asbestos risk of PMM from neighbourhood exposures, worldwide. We reported in edition 191 that The Guardian reported a current claim of a 10 from household exposures and one from the junior ‘Brexit’ Minister, Steve Baker MP, 47 year old claimant pursuing a claim for mixed exposure. The overall relative risk of has a history of campaigning for reform of
PAGE | 12
occupational asthma against Royal Mail allegedly emanated through holes in the 40%, as 17.6 per 1,000 developed AF.14 Group Limited, with the support of the floor panels, after a service of the vehicle Projecting this figure across the populations Communication Workers Union, arising from had taken place. of the four nations studied, it has been 8 hour daily exposure to diesel fumes whilst calculated that up to 500,000 people have working in a depot. It is alleged that neither According to Lawyers and Unions AF and are completely unaware. ventilation protection, nor personal supporting workers in affected industries, protective equipment, was provided, in ‘there are many more cases’, like those However, the lead author of the study, order to protect the claimant from discussed above, which are yet to be Professor Mika Kivimaki, calmed concerns: exposure. Moreover, there was a failure to brought. Indeed, Diana Holland, Assistant advise against the dangers of exposure, a General Secretary for Transport at Unite, the ‘For a healthy person, the risk of AF is very failure to conduct a risk assessment and a Union, has stated: low, and a 1.4-fold increase in that small failure to monitor air quality until 2015. risk due to long working hours does not Simpson Millar, acting for the claimant, ‘If it can be proved that the health of much change the situation’. described the extent of the claim as: workers has been damaged due to exposure to diesel fumes, Unite will consider Further, the reliability of the results may be ‘Throughout the course of his employment taking legal action on behalf of our skewed by the fact that those who worked the claimant was exposed to, ingested and members’. the most hours were more overweight, had breathed diesel exhaust fumes and higher blood pressure, smoked more and particulate and other combustion gases We will continue to update readers on any consumed more alcohol than any other from numerous vehicles passing through developments in this area of litigation. group – all of which are causative factors the out gate … the claimant’s face, skin of strokes. and clothing would become contaminated with diesel particulates. Any drinks left by Longer Working Hours We have previously looked at similar issues the booth window would develop a black Increase Risk of Stroke concerning excessive sitting at work (in film very quickly’. edition 159 of BC Disease News here). We
noted that whilst excessive sitting at work In the past, scientific investigations have Royal Mail has released an official has been associated with an increased risk purportedly demonstrated a link between statement, as follows: of major health outcomes, including increased working hours and an elevated cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular risk of stroke. Recently, the European Heart ‘Royal Mail Group has denied liability and disease, musculoskeletal disorders and Journal, has published the findings of a is robustly defending this claim ... We are a type II diabetes – the medical evidence is study into the risks associated with working responsible employer and we take the not yet strong enough to enable a long hours, carried out by University security, health and safety of our distinction between excessive sitting and College, London. This latest research employees working throughout our genetic, environmental, social and sought specifically to identify the organisation very seriously’. behavioural risk factors. prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in
workers. AF is the most common type of Simpson Millar said: heart arrhythmia and those with a positive
diagnosis are five times more likely to suffer ‘There is certainly an increase in awareness from strokes.13 about the dangers of exposure to environmental fumes … we have seen an The study group of more than 85,000 increase in the number of enquiries from middle-aged men (35%) and women (65%) clients who have been exposed to diesel from the United Kingdom, Denmark, fumes, car exhaust fumes and pollution at Sweden and Finland, who worked more work … anyone exposed to excessive than 55 hours per week, were followed over amounts of diesel fumes at work does have the course of a decade. The incidence of a potential claim’. stroke in the study group was compared
against a control group of workers working The Guardian also mentions that no more than ‘35 to 40 hours’ per week. Christchurch Borough Council is in the process of being sued in negligence by Results showed that an average of 12.4 per one of its tractor driving employees. 1,000 in the control group developed AF Scientific tests undertaken have apparently (1061 new cases). In the study group of demonstrated the presence of toxic diesel workers there was an increase in risk of fumes inside the tractor cab, which PAGE | 13
Feature: Degenerative Brain Disease in Football
Introduction
In recent times, a number of professional footballers, who played with leather footballs, have either died from, or been diagnosed with, degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). It has been inferred by many that this is the result of repeated heading of footballs. In fact, 3 members of the 1966 World Cup squad (Martin Peters, Nobby Stiles and Ray Wilson15) all now have Alzheimer’s.
In this feature article, we look into the merit of this accusation, which Richard Wickson, chairman of Reading Football Club's former players' association, perceives to be ‘the tip of the iceberg’.16
What is Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy?
CTE, formerly known as dementia pugilistica, is a degenerative brain disease often found in athletes, military veterans and others with a history of brain trauma. It was first described in 1928 by Dr Harrison Martland and termed as ‘punch drunk syndrome’.17
Symptoms do not usually begin until years after the onset of head impacts, but can affect a patient’s mood and behaviour, including impulse control, aggression, depression and paranoia. As the disease progresses, individuals with CTE may begin to experience problems with thinking and memory such as, memory loss, confusion, impaired judgment and eventually progressive dementia. In some cases, symptoms worsen with time but in others, symptoms can be stable for years before worsening. Currently the disease can only be discovered after death.18
Prevalence of Football Related Brain Injuries
CTE in football first came to the forefront when Bennet Omalu, an American physician, studied the brain of deceased NFL player, Mike Webster and discovered brain abnormalities. Following this discovery, he then went on to study the brains of other deceased NFL players and again found CTE.
Omalu’s research led to the NFL reaching a $765 million settlement over concussion-related brain injuries among its retired players in 2013 and was followed by a 2016 film starring Will Smith entitled ‘Concussion’.
Earlier this year, Omalu, gave an interview in which he called for a comprehensive overhaul of the rules governing youth football in the UK. He stated:
‘I am speaking out because I recognise that it is for the long-term survivability of the sport. If I didn’t love this sport, I would have chosen to keep quiet and see it implode. I support soccer but 21st Century, smart, brain-friendly soccer. Nothing is too big or popular to fail’. 19
Omalu has called for a total ban on heading below the age of 18 and, for children beneath the age of 12, lighter plastic balls and a modified ‘kick-ball’ version of the game that has minimal collisions.
This has reignited the public’s interest in cases such as ex-England striker and West Bromwich Albion player Jeff Astle, who died in 2002, aged 59. Astle was initially diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, however, following an autopsy, carried out by Dr. Willie Stewart, CTE was observed.20
The effect of Mr. Astle’s CTE was apparently described by Dr. Stewart in the following terms: ‘if he hadn't known he was looking at the brain of a 59-year-old man he would have thought it belonged to an 89-year-old’.21
Interestingly, before he died, Jeff Astle had ‘no recollection of playing football’. This loss of memory coincides with the development of CTE and its symptoms as illustrated above.
Further, Dr. Stewart predicted, irrespective of the fact that this is the first recognised case of this kind:
‘Jeff's case is not unique. In football, there will be more and what will be happening [currently] is that this diagnosis in football may be seen as unusual’.
PAGE | 14
The Coroner described his death from CTA as ‘an industrial disease’. The Astle family, who have launched the ‘Justice for Jeff’ campaign and the ‘Jeff Astle Foundation’ to raise awareness of the surrounding issues across the sporting sphere, claim to have knowledge of 250 more football players who have suffered from and/or died of degenerative brain disease.22
Another example of a former player, negatively impacted by brain disease, is Duncan Forbes, who developed dementia aged 64, after having played more than 500 games during his career.23 It was alleged by his wife that:
‘... as part of his training he used to head a medicine ball, with the idea that he could then head a normal football much further’.
Other examples include, Ernie Moss, Chesterfield’s all-time record goal scorer, who was diagnosed with Pick’s Disease – a rare form of dementia in his fifties. Stan Bowles, the legendary ex-QPR maverick was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in his early sixties. Frank Kopel, former Manchester United and Dundee United full-back who was diagnosed with dementia at the age of 59 and died at the age of 65. Nobby Stiles, Ray Wilson and Martin Peters, as mentioned in the introduction above, all member of the 1966 World Cup winning team, suffer dementia or memory loss. Finally, Jimmy Hill, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s shortly before his death in 2015.
Why Are Footballs Alleged to Be Dangerous?
Unlike the footballs in use currently, play used to consist of:
‘... big heavy leather balls [1 lb] that when wet, gained water and were three and a half times heavier. In bad weather it used to freeze solid’.
Nevertheless, ‘there are now standards set out in the laws of the game for the size, weight and pressure of footballs ...’24 in order to account for medical risks.
Industrial Research on the Issue
Though there are some cases, such as those outlined above, in which links between football and brain disorders have been suspected, some researchers find the current evidence of such links to be insufficient.
When speaking at the Football Medicine Strategies conference in 2016, Jiri Dvorak, Chief Medical Officer at FIFA, distanced all links between footballers' brain trauma and dementia:
‘We have very little evidence that would substantiate that assumption for football players ... But that's the reason why we are also studying the long-term changes of former professional male and female footballers. Not only for brain dysfunction but also early onset of osteoarthritis ... We are looking at the long-term changes without having any suspicions yet’.25
Jan Erkstrand, Professor of Sports Medicine at Linkoping University and the Lead Expert in UEFA’s Elite Club Injury Study, has dismissed all assertions that there is a definitive link between football and head injury. He disbelieves that a blanket heading ban will ever be introduced, as brain injury is not an ‘epidemic’.26
Meanwhile, Dr. Michael Grey, from the University of Birmingham, has emphasised the availability of ‘a dearth of good science and a great deal of opinion’27 on the issue.
So what scientific evidence of a link between football and brain disorders is there?
Evidence of Causation?
In order to determine whether there is a link between football and brain disorders, groups of footballers and non-footballers need to be compared. The question as to whether footballers who develop Alzheimer’s, or other neurological conditions, have contracted these disorders specifically as a result of playing football, or whether they would have developed them without playing football, also needs to be addressed. Studying the biology of how heading a football affects the structure and function of the brain, and how this relates to long- term disorders, is therefore warranted.
In 2011, Dr. Michael Lipton led a study of 32 adult amateur footballers at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine.28 Diffuse tensor imaging technology was utilised to assess whether the force exerted by a football was sufficient to cause permanent damage to nerves and brain tissue. The cranial regions at the front of the brain and the back of the skull are responsible for attention, memory, executive function and
PAGE | 15
higher order visual function. It was deduced that traumatic brain injury was likely to occur in subjects who headed a ball at least 1,000 to 1,500 times per year. Presenting the results at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, he revealed that:
‘Heading a soccer ball is not an impact of a magnitude that will lacerate nerve fibres in the brain ... But repetitive heading could set off a cascade of responses that can lead to degeneration of brain cells’.29
A more recent 2017 study, published in the Neurology journal, Lipton et al., again, monitored 222 footballers, each of whom headed a ball 40 times, over two weeks. This saw 1 in 5 of the test subjects suffer moderate to severe concussion-like effects, while 1 in 3, who headed the ball more than 1,000 times in a year, scored lower in cognitive tests.30
In other research, exercised by University College London and Cardiff University, neurology experts sought to track down 14 retired footballers, with careers spanning an average of 26 years. Each of the veterans were referred to old age psychiatry service in Swansea between 1980 and 2010, living an average of 10 years after onset dementia symptoms began. 12 members of the study group died of advanced dementia. Professor Huw Morris, of UCL, heralded this as:
‘... the first time in a series of players we have shown that there is evidence that head injury has occurred earlier in their life which presumably has some impact on them developing dementia.’
All 6 of those who had previously been concussed, were Alzheimer’s sufferers, while 4 were later diagnosed with CTE. 31 This incidence exceeded the 12% population average,32 when compared with a larger survey of 268 brains within an unselected population at the Queen Square Brain Bank.33 Dr Helen Ling, senior research associate at the Department of Molecular Neuroscience and neurologist at UCL’s Institute of Neurology, summarised that:
‘Our findings of CTE in retired footballers suggest a potential link between playing football and the development of degenerative brain pathologies in later life. However, it is important to note that we only studied a small number of retired footballers with dementia and that we still do not know how common dementia is among footballers ... The most pressing research question is therefore to find out if dementia is more common in footballers than in the normal population’.
Given that there was speculation among researchers that a combination of factors contributed towards dementia, however, they acknowledged that definitive proof would come from larger studies into long-term brain health. It is noted in the paper itself that, ‘Clearly, a definitive link cannot be established…’
Elsewhere, funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Brain Injury Healthcare Technology Cooperative allowed the University of Stirling to investigate the effects on 19 footballers, who headed a football 20 times from a corner set-piece.34 35 Following this, muscle silence was detected in test subjects, whereby a slight delay was registered in the time taken for nerve signals to reach the leg muscles (123 milliseconds after the headers compared to 117 milliseconds beforehand), otherwise known as corticomotor inhibition. This is a possible indicator for sub-concussion. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) immediately after the experiment, as well as 24 hours and 48 hours later, researchers established inhibited brain function after a single session, with memory also reduced between 41% and 67%. Still, these effects normalised within 24 hours.36 Regardless of the fact that changes measured were minimal over a relatively short term of exposure, Dr. Magdalena Ietswaart opined that:
‘... they are significant to brain health, particularly if they happen over and over again as they do in football heading’.
This assumption, indicating the possible impacts of cumulative trauma, has, nevertheless, not been observed in historic animal studies, where test subjects experienced repeated concussion (20-35 times in a two hour period). In that instance, injury rates were not concurrent with any residual effect and concussion was, to all intents and purposes, ‘reversible’.37
Another expert in the field, Dr Andrew Rutherford, from the School of Psychology at Keele University, is still yet to be convinced by the evidence in circulation, citing the prime cause of head trauma seen in football to be a result of ‘players clashing heads when they are going for a header, rather than contact with the ball itself’.38 Other influential scholars have also been critical of the lack of distinction between different types of ball-to-head contact, relating to brain injury, insinuating that ‘purposeful heading’ is not to blame for cognitive deficit.39
Indeed, it has recently been reported that Liverpool Defender, Dejan Lovren, takes medication in order to overcome the discomfort of head injuries, stating:
‘I am taking pills so I can play - five before every game. I play but I cannot train at all’.40
PAGE | 16
Future Research
Continued pressure has been applied by the Astle family, in the hope that the Football Association (FA) would ‘lead the way’ and secure funding for research into the association between football and brain disease.41 Subsequently, Greg Dyke, chairman of the FA, has confirmed that a commission had been set up to investigate head injuries, which includes representatives from the FA, the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA) and the Premier League. Dr. Charlotte Cowie, of the FA, has also assured that:
‘The FA is determined to support this research and is also committed to ensuring that any research process is independent, robust and thorough, so that when the results emerge, everyone in the game can be confident in its findings’.
Medical Chief of the FA, Dr. Ian Beasley, commented on research questions, proposed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) by the FA, in 2014. It was hoped that answers provided would result in greater understanding of the risks of cognitive decline facing professional footballers, both past and current, depending on the pitch position played, the amount of games played and the level played at. He has assured that:
‘You may still want to be a professional footballer but at least we can advise you what the chances are of something irreversible happening to you’.42
Litigation
So far, in the context of legal battles, the result of a class-action lawsuit, sustained by a group of child footballers and their parents against the US Soccer Federation, saw the implementation of rule changes, thereafter stipulating that children aged 10 and under are no longer allowed to head the ball, while 11 to 13 year-olds have headers limited in training.43 Elsewhere, before the turn of the Millennium, Billy McPhail, the former Celtic player, failed to recover disability payments at an Industrial Tribunal.44 However, the latest analysis of Dr. Willie Stewart, in the Jeff Astle inquest, may be a catalyst for retrospectively validating formerly dismissed claims, brought against employers and regulators.
Also, with the topic rapidly attracting public interest, Alan Shearer, the former professional footballer, is set to host a documentary, called ‘Dementia – Football’s Silent Shame’, which is scheduled to be broadcast, in the near future, on the BBC.45 There is potential for floodgates to open, therefore, if the scientific evidence, currently devoid of an agreed consensus, shifts in favour of an accepted relationship between brain damage and heading of footballs.
The risk of CTE claims ‘blowing up’ is also increased by Premier League football managers, like Tony Pulis, publicly backing calls to investigate the links between playing football and brain injuries.46
Conclusion
As discussed in this feature article, reports implicating brain disease and football together, especially in respect of repeated heading of the football, are increasing. Nevertheless, many links are still disputed among certain experts. This autumn saw former Ireland international, Kevin Doyle, retire from the sport, at a premature age of just 34.47 His decision was taken on the advice of medical experts, who were aware of persistent episodes of concussion and headache. Doyle’s departure from professional football is indicative of the fact that the modern day game may still be dangerous for brain health and is likely to fall within the ‘industrial disease’ speculation.
Still, researchers at Boston University claim to have found a new biomarker, called CCL11, which can be interspersed in cerebrospinal fluid and allow CTE to not only be distinguished from Alzheimer’s, but also be identified while sufferers are alive. This would be a major breakthrough and a first step towards any chance of disease prevention. Chief of neuropathology, Dr Ann McKee, has said that:
‘Once we can diagnose CTE in living individuals successfully, we will be much closer to discovering treatments for those who suffer from it’.48
PAGE | 17
References
1 Gareth Price, ‘QOCS: Frayed At The Edges?’ (Parkland Plowden Chambers 4th June 2015)< http://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/uploads/documents/GDP%20-%20QOCS%20frayed%20at%20the%20edges.pdf> accessed 27 April 2016.
2 Newcastle CC decision of His Honour Judge Freedman handed down on 11th August 2017.
3 Leeds County Court, C07YJ617, 9th June 2017.
4 Newcastle County Court, BS 1 YX313, 23rd May 2017.
5 Liverpool County Court, 12th June 2017.
6 Nick Hilborne ’Supreme Court to hear appeal against defective service ruling in law firm negligence case’ (29 September 2017 Litigation Futures)
7 Neil Rose, ‘Gone but not forgotten – Asons ordered to pay costs after running case without claimant’s knowledge’ (4 October 2017 Litigation Futures)
8 Daniel Holland, ‘Controversial law firm Asons found guilty of falsifying documents’ (4 October 2017 The Bolton News)
9 Max Walters, ‘Judge criticises 'deeply disturbing' practices at defunct Asons’ (3 October 2017 Law Society Gazette)
10 Terry Gangcuangco, ‘LV= wins case against negligent solicitor’ (4 October 2017 Insurance Business)
11 Marsh, G. M., Riordan, A. S., Keeton, K. A. & Benson, S. M. Non-occupational exposure to asbestos and risk of pleural mesothelioma: review and meta-analysis. Occup Environ Med oemed-2017-104383 (2017). doi:10.1136/oemed-2017-104383 http://oem.bmj.com/content/early/2017/09/20/oemed-2017-104383 (Accessed: 10th October 2017)
12 Sandra Laville and Sarah Marsh, ‘UK legal claims grow over exposure at work to toxic diesel fumes’ (16 September 2017 The Guardian)
13 Mika Kivimaki et al., ‘Long working hours as a risk factor for atrial fibrillation: a multi-cohort study’ European Heart Journal (2017) 38, 2621–2628, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx324 <
14 James Rudd, ‘Long working days can cause heart problems, study says’ (14 July 2017 The Guardian)
15 ‘FA wants Fifa to investigate possible dementia link to ex-footballers’ (9 April 2016 BBC News)
16 Matt Lee, ‘Jeff Astle: Head injury footballer's case tip of the iceberg?’ (3 April 2014 BBC News)
17 https://concussionfoundation.org/CTE-resources/what-is-CTE
18 Harry Dayantis, ‘Evidence of brain damage found in former footballers’ (15 February 2017 UCL)
19 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/08/09/exclusive-change-footballs-laws-head-oblivion-concussion-expert/
20 Harry Dayantis, ‘Evidence of brain damage found in former footballers’ (15 February 2017 UCL)
21 ‘Jeff Astle: West Brom legend 'killed by boxing brain condition'’ (1 June 2014 BBC News)
22 ‘'250 more' footballers with degenerative brain disease’ (12 April 2016 BBC News)
23 Matt Lee, ‘Jeff Astle: Head injury footballer's case tip of the iceberg?’ (3 April 2014 BBC News)
24 ‘Wife of Jeff Astle frustrated with FA over death’ (18 January 2012 BBC News)
25 ‘FA wants Fifa to investigate possible dementia link to ex-footballers’ (9 April 2016 BBC News)
26 Liam Mackey, ‘Kevin Doyle brings heading worries into focus’ (30 September 2017 Irish Examiner)
27 ‘Football Association to lead study into brain disease in footballers’ (31 May 2016 BBC News)
28 Michael L. Lipton, MD, PhD et al., ‘Soccer Heading Is Associated with White Matter Microstructural and Cognitive Abnormalities’, Radiology. 2013 Sep; 268(3): 850–857.
29 Michelle Roberts, ‘Footballers: Too many headers 'can damage the brain'’ (29 November 2011 BBC News)
30 Stewart WF et al., ‘Symptoms from repeated intentional and unintentional head impact in soccer players’ Neurology. 2017 Feb 28;88(9):901-908. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003657. Epub 2017 Feb 1.
31 ‘Heading footballs 'linked to brain damage in professional players'’ (15 February 2017 NHS)
32 Gonzalo Viña, ‘Long footballing career can damage the brain, scientists find’ (15 February 2017 Financial Times)
PAGE | 19
33 Harry Dayantis, ‘Evidence of brain damage found in former footballers’ (15 February 2017 UCL)
34 ‘Study finds heading a football has immediate effect on the brain’ (24 October 2016 The Guardian)
35 ‘Heading a football causes instant changes to the brain’ (24 October 2016 University of Stirling)
36 Di Virgilio TG, ‘Heading footballs may cause short-term brain changes’ (24 October 2016 PubMed Health)
37 Parkinson D, ‘Concussion is completely reversible; an hypothesis’ Med Hypotheses. 1992 Jan;37(1):37-9.
38 Michelle Roberts, ‘Footballers: Too many headers 'can damage the brain'’ (29 November 2011 BBC News)
39 Kirkendall DT et al., ‘Heading in Soccer: Integral Skill or Grounds for Cognitive Dysfunction?’, J Athl Train. 2001 Sep;36(3):328-333.
40 Aidan O'Hara, ‘Doyle's decision unlikely to start concussion conversation’ (2 October 2017 Irish Independent)
41 ‘Football Association to lead study into brain disease in footballers’ (31 May 2016 BBC News)
42 ‘FA wants Fifa to investigate possible dementia link to ex-footballers’ (9 April 2016 BBC News)
43 Jack de Menezes, ‘US Soccer ban heading the ball for children over fears of concussion and head injuries’ (10 November 2017 The Independent)
44 ‘Billy McPhail’ (7 April 2003 The Scotsman)
45 Ben Dowell, ‘Alan Shearer to investigate dementia in football for new BBC1 documentary’ (23 February 2017 Radio Times)
46 Paul Suart, ‘Tony Pulis backs brain injury research after ex-Wolves striker retires with concussion fears’ (2 October 2017 Birmingham Mail)
47 Liam Mackey, ‘Kevin Doyle brings heading worries into focus’ (30 September 2017 Irish Examiner)
48 Graeme Donohoe, ‘Scientists make research breakthrough in fight against brain damage in ex-footballers’ (1 October 2017 Daily Record)
PAGE | 20
Disclaimer
This newsletter does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to provide an update on issues that may be of interest to those handling occupational disease claims. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in any particular case.
© BC Legal 2016.
BC Legal is a trading name of BC Legal Limited which is registered in England and Wales under company number 08963320. We are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The registered office is 1 Nelson Mews, Southend-on-Sea, SS1 1AL. The partners are Boris Cetnik and Charlotte Owen. More details on the firm can be found at www.bc- legal.co.uk
PAGE | 21
Directors: B. Cetnik, C. Owen Registered Office: 1 Nelson Mews, Southend-On-Sea, SS1 1AL PAGE | 22 BC Legal is a trading name of BC Legal Limited which is registered in England and Wales under company number 08963320 We are Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulations Authority (SRA No 617698)