Silicosis De Minimis Success

Case alert: Feeney v John Laing Group Plc & another (Gateshead County Court)

We successfully applied for summary judgment where the Claimant suffered from asymptomatic silicosis. The Judge agreed with our position, that the symptoms were not clinically significant and did not give rise to any functional impairment that was compensable in law.

The Facts

The Claimant alleged that his work as a stonemason resulted in exposure to significant quantities of respirable silica dust.

The Claimant's medical expert concluded the Claimant's silicosis was "probably not causing any respiratory disability" and that it was possible that it was making a small contribution to his cough and a minor degree of breathlessness, although there were other causes of these symptoms.

He took the view that there was an approximate 10% chance of the silicosis worsening to cause breathlessness with a respiratory disability of 10% or more. There was also an increased risk of lung cancer (1%) and of tuberculosis (0.1%) owing to the diagnosis.

The Claimant also suffered with pre-existing psychological issues and anxiety, which he alleged had deteriorated as a result of the silicosis diagnosis.

Summary judgment

We applied for summary judgment on the basis that the Claimant's medical evidence noted the silicosis was not causing any respiratory disability and was not responsible for any symptoms. It was our position that even if the silicosis diagnosis was proven, the symptoms were not clinically significant and did not give rise to any functional impairment. It was therefore de minimis, caused no harm to the Claimant and was not compensable in law.

In respect of the psychiatric injury, the medical evidence failed to confirm that the diagnosis of silicosis had caused any psychiatric injury to the Claimant. In any event, any anxiety (if proved) consequent on a diagnosis of a non-actionable injury was not compensable on the basis of Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd and Gieves v Everard.

The Judge agreed with our submissions, despite the Claimant advancing counter arguments; namely relying on the judgment of Harry Mills v J P Barnes (2013). In that case, the Court found there was a respiratory disability due to silicosis, sufficient to amount to a material injury.

The present case was however distinguishable as there was insufficient evidence to find there was any respiratory...