McKenna v Greater Glasgow Health Board [1999] ScotCS 279 (24 November 1999)

McKenna v Greater Glasgow Health Board [1999] ScotCS 279 (24 November 1999)

The pursuer failed to establish on the evidence that her back condition at the time of termination was caused or materially contributed to by her work with the defenders. The court preferred the evidence of the defenders' witnesses, particularly regarding the extent of external duties and the provision of training, and found the pursuer's evidence lacking in credibility. Medical evidence supported a natural progression of her condition unrelated to her work. Accordingly, the defenders were not liable.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 279
Parties
Pursuer: Millicent Margaret McKenna; Defender: Greater Glasgow Health Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
action dismissed; defenders assoilzied
Legal Topics
Workplace Injury, Causation, Employer's Duty of Care, Training and Supervision, Credibility of Witnesses
Employment Law Personal Injury Workplace Injury Causation Employer's Duty of Care Training and Supervision Credibility of Witnesses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Millicent Margaret McKenna

Pursuer

Greater Glasgow Health Board

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's back injury and subsequent termination of employment were caused or materially contributed to by her working conditions with the defenders.
  2. 2 Whether the defenders failed in their duty to provide adequate training in lifting techniques.
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's evidence was credible regarding the extent and effect of her work duties.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to establish on the evidence that her back condition at the time of termination was caused or materially contributed to by her work with the defenders. The court preferred the evidence of the defenders' witnesses, particularly regarding the extent of external duties and the provision of training, and found the pursuer's evidence lacking in credibility. Medical evidence supported a natural progression of her condition unrelated to her work. Accordingly, the defenders were not liable.

Court Disposition

action dismissed; defenders assoilzied

Orders

  • Defenders assoilzied from the conclusions of the summons.