A recycling company has been hit with a fine following an incident which led to an employee having his arm amputated.
Domingos da Conceicao Freitas was working at MSK Waste Management and Recycling Ltd, on River Road, Barking, when the accident occurred on 17 August 2012.
The 28-year-old was asked by a supervisor to clear a blockage on a picking line to sort waste and transfer materials to different bins.
When doing so, however, his arm became trapped between a roller and the belt of a moving conveyor.
He had no other choice but to have his dominant right arm amputated. He is
no longer able to work and now struggles with day-to-day tasks such as washing and dressing.
Arm injury claim
An arm injury claim with amputation is the most extreme case of a claim. It can have a few different forms, below the elbow, above the elbow, or at your shoulder amputation.
When you lose more of your arm, you are going to receive more compensation. It can be difficult coming to terms with such an injury, although this should not put you off seeking the compensation you deserve.
Accident Advice Helpline is here to offer assistance through its team of expert solicitors, finding the one that is right for you and your case.
An informal system was in place at MSK Waste Management and Recycling Ltd to clear blockages using a piece of wire that was pushed through an opening in the side of the conveyor frame to hook items from between the roller and the belt.
It was usually undertaken by two or three people. Mr Freitas, however, attempted it by himself as his supervisor and other workers went on a break.
He had no real option but to do so while the conveyor was still switched on because the control panel was so far away.
The Health and Safety Executive found there were two openings on the conveyor, neither of which was guarded despite sliding guards being available. Mr Freitas became entangled as he accessed the first opening.
MSK Waste Management and Recycling Ltd, registered to Station Road, Sidcup, Kent, pleaded guilty to a single breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
It was fined £10,000 and was ordered to pay a further £5,944 in costs plus £5,000 in
Powered by WPeMatico
Date Published: October 27, 2013
Author: David Brown