The HAV’s

Some stories make my blood boil because of the inherent wrongness of what’s happened and happening and for that reason stories like mine might simply be labelled ’emotional’. I say we SHOULD be emotional about cases like this.

Over a month ago in my local Central Hawkes Bay Mail newspaper there appeared the story of Chris Booth. It told the story of Chris’ ongoing struggle with a big Government Department to receive financial assistance due (in my opinion) to an employment related workplace injury resulting in HAVS or Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome.

The newspaper article seemed like one of those last ditch efforts to shine a light on this ridiculous David and Goliath exercise in semantic stupidity since the Department found it easier to bury their bureaucratic heads in the sand. It’s own internal processes and machinations seem confused and this unfortunately has not helped Chris one iota.

HAVS and CTS (Carpel Tunnel Syndrome)

The problem as I understand it is that the Department won’t support an application for financial assistance to him based on the ‘initial’ report by a specialist describing Chris’ condition as being Carpel Tunnel Syndrome. This initial diagnosis is understandable to some extent since they have similar pain patterns. However, it was later amended and properly diagnosed by a leading N.Z. specialist as being HAVS. The BGD (big Government Department) will not move from its initial rejection of his application because that application was diagnosed as him having Carpel Tunnel.

Chris had been working as a small engine mechanic in an automotive workshop here in a local business. He had to use a rattle gun, an air impact vibrating tool used to do up and undo nuts and bolts. HAVS is suffered by people who work with tools or objects that involve vibration such as buffers, grinders, sanders and jackhammers and so on. This is one of the distinguishing differences between HAVS and CTS (Carpel Tunnel Syndrome).

In Chris’ case I’d have thought that any correct diagnosis would have had an inter-agency approach (that is, medical, occupational, Government Department and Social Services) given the severity of his condition. From a whole other perspective, legal specifically, a case might be made for discovery of the source of the repetitive strain as well as the source of vibration and in my opinion based on what that looks like ALL roads lead back to Waipukurau and his former employer. He got the boot after he’d used up all his Sick and Holiday Leave. A typical scenario sadly.

Interestingly, the newspaper article touches so briefly on the employer as to appear mozzie-bite-like. It’s an itch I’d like to scratch! “The standard required of employers in the control of significant hazards is ‘all practicable steps’. Many of the duties in the Health and Safety in Employment Act are qualified by the words ‘take all practicable steps’. This phrase applies to the general duties that must be carried out by employers, employees, self-employed people, people who control places of work, and ‘principals’, who are people who engage contractors to carry out work for them.”

The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992

“In the late 1980s New Zealand began a comprehensive review of the raft of health and safety laws then in place, and the review culminated in the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. The new legislation implemented the major principles of the Robens report, while placing additional emphasis on the need for employers to manage hazards in the workplace.

The legal responsibility for safety and health decisions at a workplace rests with the employer, but the consultation process should help employers to reach decisions which take into account information and recommendations provided by employees or a workplace health and safety committee or representatives.

At the risk of removing the human element, which I’m loathe to do from this topic I want to point out that here in New Zealand a paper presented to the Wiley InterScience Journal in 2006 by R. D. Wigley, J. A. de Groot and C. Walls entitled: ‘Contribution of vibration to musculoskeletal disorders in New Zealand’ was a study aimed at reminding Australasian doctors about the importance of vibration as an occupational exposure capable of causing musculoskeletal disease. Only four reports have been found in Australasian published work.

Under-reported Cases in New Zealand

Nine cases are reported together with a summary of vibration disorders and their nomenclature, that is, referring to a system of names or terms, or the rules used for forming the names as used by an individual or community, especially those used in a particular science (scientific nomenclature) or art.

Of the nine cases Wigley et al reviewed, six arose from compensation disputes and two resulted in Department of Labour prosecutions. Three patients had hand symptoms arising from using vibrating concrete drills, two patients used heavy floor-polishing machines in hospitals and three used heavy metal polishing machines. One had general pain from whole-body vibration in a digging machine. Minor circulatory signs were found in two patients, but cold exposure was not noted.

Vibration disease is under-reported in New Zealand. Wigley et al suggest Doctors must question patients about vibration exposure in taking an occupational history, as vibration is an important factor in the causation of occupational musculoskeletal disorders. As vibration can be controlled, illness can be prevented.” Come back tomorrow and let’s look at the history of HAVS and consider the HAV Nots.

* This is 1 of a 4 part blog. The NEXT blog is entitled ‘The HAV Nots’