Compensation For Pleural Thickening

In England, unlike other parts of the United Kingdom, compensation cannot be claimed for the asbestos related disease of pleural plaques. In 2007 the House of Lords upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling that pleural plaques are not a compensatable injury.

Pleural plaques are not to be confused with pleural thickening which is a disease of the lungs for which you can claim compensation if the condition is caused by asbestos dust or fibres. Symptoms of pleural thickening include a feeling of tightness across the chest, chest pain, a persistent cough, breathlessness and difficulty coping with physical activities.

Diffuse thickening of the pleura of the lungs may not necessarily be caused by asbestos and may be due to infections, rheumatoid disease, certain drugs, and tuberculosis. There is a long latency period between the date when there was exposure to the asbestos and the development of asbestos related pleural thickening of the lungs (the asbestos lung disease does not start immediately at the time of the exposure to asbestos).

If the exposure to asbestos dust occurred at work then a compensation claim for developing the lung disease can be made against the company that employed you when you inhaled the asbestos dust. If the company that you worked for now no longer exists then you may be entitled to an award of compensation from the DWP under the Pneumoconiosis, etc (Workers Compensation) Act 1979.

In addition, the DWP also administers the Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefits scheme where a weekly benefit is paid, dependent on the severity of the disablement, to people who suffer diffuse pleural thickening caused by exposure to asbestos at work.

More information:

Bus Accident In Bradford City Centre

A man who was knocked down by a bus in Bradford’s town centre made an accident compensation claim against the bus company because he suffered serious injuries as a result of the front wheel of the bus travelling over his body.

The bus company argued that the accident was unavoidable because the man stepped out in front of the bus, therefore not allowing the bus driver time to take action to avoid a collision. The accident occurred on a pedestrian crossing and the bus had the right of way because the red man was displayed telling pedestrians to wait. The bus was travelling at a speed of only 4mph.

However, when the bus driver was interviewed by police the bus driver said that he did not know where the man came from and that the first time he saw him was when he hit the bus. The police accident report also stated that it took the bus a distance of about 45 feet to stop, whereas a bus travelling at about 4mph should have come to a stop within about 6 feet. The bus driver had failed to make an emergency stop at the time of the accident.

If the bus driver had been paying proper attention he would have seen the man and been able to react to him stepping from the pavement into the road. The serious injuries suffered by the man were largely caused by the front tyre of the bus travelling over his body and not the impact of the initial collision that knocked him over. The court held that it was the bus driver’s negligent failure to see the man and react and stop the bus promptly that caused the front tyre to go over the man. The Appeal Court decided that the bus company was liable to pay the man compensation, but the man was 50% contributory negligent for the accident because the way that he stepped out in front of the bus made a collision inevitable.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Satnam Rehill v Rider Holdings Limited