INDUSTRIAL DERMATITIS

What is it?

Industrial Dermatitis is an inflammatory reaction of the skin caused or aggravated by regular contact with irritant substances in the course of employment.

There are two types of dermatitis which are as follows:-

a) Irritant Contact Dermatitis (ICD)

ICD is normally the result of the skin coming into contact with one or more substances causing cell damage (prolonged exposure to even very weak irritants can give rise to chronic ICD; strong irritants can give rise to acute ICD.

b) Allergic Contact Dermatitis

This normally arises due to the sensitisation of the individual to the relevant substance/allergen, which may occur after only one exposure or repeated exposures spanning a number of years.

ACD is more difficult to control after development, only limited contact can again cause the condition to flare up.

Symptoms

Common symptoms of dermatitis are irritation of the skin in the category of skin disease such as psoriasis or scabies, which are often difficult to distinguish. Particularly with Irritant Contact Dermatitis, failure to recognise at an early stage that a dermatitis is due to irritancy will lead to a prolonged problem. It is generally believed that it takes about four months for the skin to fully recover from a severe episode of Irritant Contact Dermatitis and so any potentially irritant contact on that time will hinder the healing process.

Causes

The following occupations are at risk from Industrial Dermatitis:-

a) Construction workers

b) A film laboratory worker

c) A salon worker in contact with hairdressing preparations

d) Manufacturing work in contact with pharmaceutical agents

e) A hospital worker in contact with detergent/soaps

f) A metal machining worker in contact with mineral oils

g) A print worker in contact with printing chemicals

h) An electronics worker in contact with soldering fluxes

i) A manufacturing worker, farm worker or user of spray products in contact with pesticides and preservatives

Substances which have been proved to cause skin disease are used in a variety of processes in industry. The most common agents are:-

a) Cutting oils

b) Nickel

c) Chemicals

d) Rubbers

e) Degreasing agents

f) Tar, pitch and other products of cool tar

g) Physical agents including, heat light humidity etc.

h) Other agents; flour, cement dust, slurry and fibreglass

The Law

There are several statutory provisions which require employers to take care of the health and safety of their employees. They are as follows:-

(A) Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 2002

They require employers to:-

1) Regulation 6(1) – Carry out suitable and sufficient assessment

2) Regulation 7(1) – Prevent or alternatively, to adequately control exposure

3) Regulation 7(3) – Apply appropriate protective measures

4) Regulation 7(4) – Provide suitable personnel protective equipment

5) Regulation 10(1) – Monitor exposure

6) Regulation 11(1) – Carry out health surveillance

7) Regulation 12(2) – Provide sufficient information, instruction and training

(B) Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992 require employers to provide sufficient washing facilities (Regulation 21)

(C) Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992

They require employers to:-

1) Regulation 4 – Provide suitable personal protective equipment

2) Regulation 6 – Carry out sufficient assessment of the risks

3) Regulation 9 – Give information, instruction and training

4) Regulation 10 – Ensure that equipment is properly used by the employees

(D) Schedule 3 of the reporting of injuries, diseases and Dangerous occurrences Regulations 1995 lists some of the following substances as having irritant properties:-

a) Cement

b) Plaster

c) Concrete

d) Epoxy resins

e) Alkalies

f) Acids

g) Dyes, shampoos, soaps and detergents

h) Organic solvents

When the employer asks his employees to work with any of the aforementioned substances, he must provide appliances to safeguard them. He must set in force a proper system by which they use the appliances and take the necessary precautions. Mere provision of the protective equipment is insufficient in the absence of giving the Claimant any warning of the danger of Irritant Contact Dermatitis from the sustained exposure of their skin to the irritants products.

Case Studies

Case Study 1

The Claimant, male aged 23 at trial, was employed by the Defendant as an operator on a production line. He used a rubber lubricant solution known as P80 in the manufacture of windscreen wash bottles for vehicles. He developed a rash on his left index finger that then spread over a matter of weeks to affect the palms of both hands. His fingers and hands were cracked and sore and tended to split. He was off of work for several months before returning to work but had difficulty in playing his guitar, washing his hair and washing his car. He was awarded damages in the sum of £12,000 which was then reduced by 20% on account of contributory negligence.

Case Study 2

The Claimant, female, aged 21 at the date of the injury and 27 at trial, worked as a manager of one of the Defendant’s mini labs, processing films. She used an industrial cleaning agent to shift heavy stains left by photo processing chemicals and although she was provided with rubber gloves she was not provided with adequate training as to how you use them properly or replace them sufficiently frequently. As a result, she contaminated the inside of her gloves and developed dermatitis of the hands. She was forced to leave her job and was only able to seek work that was “clean and dry”, avoiding occupations such as nursing or catering. As a result the court awarded her damages in the sum of £23,500 for her injury.

Case Study 3

The Claimant, aged 55 at the date of trial, was employed by the Defendant as a hospital catering assistant. She developed dermatitis in both hands as a result of undertaking wet work involving contact with detergents and bleach. Although she initially continued to work, eventually her employment was terminated on the basis of her dermatitis. She developed a dry scaly rash which later blistered and wept. She remained at risk of future hand dermatitis and would only remain free of further eruption on the basis of her avoiding wet work and contact with bleach and detergents. She was awarded damages in the sum of £67,000 by the court.

Launch in external player