Global Recognition Campaign for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Government v Sick Farm Worker;   A battle for truth and life.



This is an example of how a small lie can cause a great scandal reaching to the highest levels of government.



I was born, raised, and spent most of my working life on farms in England, UK.

After 20 years reaching management level on a dairy, beef and arable farm the farm was sold to an international “farming” family with an agribusiness mentality in November 1991. The new owner accepted all responsibilities for the previous employer but on another of the farms owned by the company In January 1992 I was exposed to organophosphorus chemicals stored in the tank of a crop sprayer for some months and became very ill with cardio-respiratory, vision, digestive and neurological problems including severe headaches, repetitive thoughts like hallucinations, sweating and great difficulty in breathing. I was so ill that I had forgotten the exposure at first. I could not even talk properly, and Doctors thought that I might be suffering from asthma or some reaction to a virus but all tests failed to find the cause. Heart problems were suspected but all tests proved negative with the only early reported positive findings being reduced lung capacity, a problem with oxygen utilisation, and an erratic heart beat.

Some of the drugs used to treat the symptoms were actually contraindicated in poisoning but we were not to discover this for some months.

I became very sensitive to all manner of chemicals including oils, perfumes and washing powders.
Friends who normally smoked could no longer do so in my home because of the effects on my health. The Poisons Unit in London told me I had been poisoned after blood tests but they said more tests were needed urgently. The toxicologist was particular concerned about the vision problems and said that an ophthalmologist, not an optician, was needed in addition to
neurologists and psychologists.
Six months later and those “urgent” tests were still not done but they once again confirmed that the symptoms were those of poisoning and if they had not then they would not have funded the tests.

I was told to report the exposure to the Health & Safety Executive, after threats of prosecution for not reporting, but the HSE simply telephoned the employer who, on advice from his insurers, denied all knowledge of the incident.

The false claim that there had been no incident then became part of the official record and was to prove very difficult to remove.
The tests were sometimes traumatic and an exercise test proved very dangerous and had every muscle in my body in uncontrollable tremor with sweat pouring from me. I was in such a state that the staff were trying to obtain advice from their superiors. Hours later two staff members assisted me back to the ward but the test was later described as “normal” in reports.
A specific “delay” in the heart, cognitive changes and memory problems were also identified.
After several examinations when the correct testing procedures were not used, and after a preliminary report on the case had been issued by a military doctor from the USA, did the ophthalmologist report proven patches and distortions in the visual fields, image retention, and light sensitivity, as the result of optic nerve, brain and autonomic nervous system damage. He was to refer me back to a neurologist.
That referral never came but instead the hospital chose an optician to do the next test without the correct equipment and he declared that there were no vision problems at all.
The GP did not trust the Poisons Unit and suggested that they were simply using my body for research purposes so he obtained a second opinion, which also gave the diagnosis as OP poisoning.

A senior lecturer in health and safety advised me to make a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman about the HSE and take legal action against the employer.

On advice from the recommended “good solicitor” a claim for Industrial injury Disease C3, poisoning by organophosphorus pesticides, was made.
In January 1995 I was examined for the benefit and sensation losses were found in the limbs but the claim was turned down. I then discovered that a Poisons Unit doctor who had never examined me had written three letters about the case on the same day, just a week after the writ for the negligence action had been served. To the Benefits Agency he wrote that mine was a genuine case and fulfilled the criteria for the industrial injury pension but to the GP he wrote that I had not been poisoned and that even the symptoms were not consistent with those expected from OPs.  The employer had admitted 20 years of exposure to OPs and that the sprayer had contained OP chemical. Sadly he refused to name the chemical.
The doctor's actions were the result of a failed complaint about the HSE’s dishonesty made to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The third letter was not discovered for another 6 years but the doctor had informed the HSE and it was admitted that the review of the poisoning diagnosis was linked to the false information given to them. Obviously if there had been no incident then there could be no possibility of poisoning.

I appealed against the denial of benefit but then there was a sham medical with the denial excuse copied word for word from the earlier examiner’s report. I appealed again.

In the meantime another opinion had been obtained from a specialist who confirmed that the symptoms were those of poisoning but said that it would be difficult to prove in court.
At this point the  “solicitor” attended a meeting at my home with senior HSE staff and then proceeded to stop the employer negligence case. It was then discovered that the so-called “solicitor” was unqualified, with links to the HSE, and so the case went to another legal firm dealing specifically with such cases.

The new solicitors said that the first had been dishonest - “shysters” was the word used - and that my case was strong with a high probability of success in court.

However, within months, the case was passed to yet another solicitor within the same firm who repeated the first “solicitor’s” lies and that resulted in the loss of legal aid for the first time.
I appealed only to have several appeal dates cancelled by the then Legal Aid Board at the eleventh hour. Then I was told that my right to legal aid depended on the outcome of the now famous Hill v Tomkins organophosphorus case. (Mr Hill later won his case but did not open doors and, if anything the attempts at cover-up intensified.)

Concerned at the dishonesty encountered I reported my experiences to the Select Committee on Agriculture, along with many other scientists and observers who could report similar problems.

Officials worked behind the scenes to undermine our reports and a similar situation followed when a member of the House of Lords raised my case, and that of another whose health was badly affected by the same farmer, in Parliament. What the Hansard report does not detail is that the Health & Safety Executive not only failed to protect or to properly investigate but they actively worked against those pesticide exposed.
Internal documents were later to show was that some 90 HSE staff actively worked against me behind the scenes and that one at least was instructed to undermine the legal case.

The new solicitors worked to regain the legal aid funding and in the meantime I had to appear before a Tribunal for the benefit claim in 1997.

Sadly I was not at all well due to the traffic fumes and the polishes and perfumes at the hearing but it made little difference because the Benefits Agency papers were not complete or legible. The Tribunal was halted with the Benefits Agency stating that they would have appealed if I had won anyway because of the state of their own papers.
The Tribunal unanimously declared that I was showing obvious neurological symptoms and said that they wanted me to be tested by a specialist neurological unit.

Instead the Benefits Agency sent me to a chosen neurologist who had no proper equipment.

This doctor admitted to knowing nothing about organophosphorus poisoning but never-the-less produced a report full of  factual errors and introduced a new word into my medical records “Somatisation”.
That became the battle cry of the Secretary of State and all officials under him.

Eventually legal aid was granted but only on condition that my case was included in a group action involving claims about the harm caused by Sheep Dip, which was formed long after my writ had been served. All protests fell on deaf ears despite the Legal Aid Board also saying my case was not sheep dip.
The solicitors had been suggesting that a new medical opinion should be sought but time had passed and I suggested that before they did that they should obtain the full hospital medical records and the details of the actual chemical involved in the tank mixture. They said that they would but they failed to arrange the promised appointment for further tests for the
court case. They blamed lack of sufficient funding.

Time passed but still there was no action.

Then suddenly their firm took all the cases to another legal firm whose senior partner was closely linked to the Government. There was little choice but to agree to the move since one of the senior partners was also influential within the Legal Aid Board.
Again promises were made to obtain the medical records and chemical details but now we were in 1999 and very little had progressed since the writ had been served in 1994.

My wife was found to have breast cancer, said to be of environmental origin, and life became even more difficult.

We found it interesting that the chemotherapy had a similar effect on her body as the poisons had done in my case and she was told that this was not surprising but she should be reassured because hers was a controlled and reversible form of poisoning whereas mine was uncontrolled and irreversible.
She has also become very sensitive to perfumes and washing powders but luckily she is not so badly affected as I am and can still go to shops, cinemas and family parties etc., but sadly without my company.

One of the solicitors in the new firm visited me and said that they had been grossly misled about the case and that it was very strong.

She sent a paper submitted to the court putting the estimated damages at over 800,000 UK pounds, including the lost pensions, wages and the costs of medication and travel - but with no mention of the harm to my health and my family. I joked
that with the government denying the dangers of the chemicals then I would be lucky to get a penny in compensation.
The solicitor went away with a considerable amount of extra evidence and the next we heard was that one of the hospitals, which had confirmed poisoning, now denied having any record that I had attended.
This was strange given that they had issued a report and we had receipts for the flights, hotel bills, and copies of the associated appointment and report, but none of that helped the situation.
Then we received notification from the solicitors firm that a barrister’s opinion on the group action was that no case could succeed. I wrote complaining that there were serious errors of fact in my case but all protests were ignored. Barristers wrote that they were confident that I had no case.

Another Tribunal was called in respect to the Benefit claim but this time the members were obviously intent on hiding the truth.

Again the Benefits Agency papers were incomplete but because of the costs we were persuaded to continue, although only on the condition that we would be permitted to enter any supporting evidence into the proceedings. The problem was that one of the members was linked to the hospital controlling the Poisons Unit and every record that demonstrated physical problems with the heart or vision, or whatever, was declared as irrelevant by the Tribunal members. Medical examination found no vibration sense at all in the ankles and loss of sensation in the limbs.
All that was ignored and the Tribunal declared “somatisation syndrome” as the cause of the symptoms.

I appealed again on the grounds that the Tribunal had been conducted unlawfully.

That put me before a Commissioner and my “representative“ helped me to prepare a referenced statement and some 50 pages of supporting evidence.
Sadly only when we arrived in the courtroom did my “representative” stand up and say that I was actually representing myself. Too shocked to think straight I opened the folder of papers placed before me and discovered that the statement had been altered, there were no references - and there were none of the pages of evidence, not one.  Only weeks before the HSE had
"inspected" their office to ensure compliance with safety laws.
The perfumes and travelling had taken their toll - so much so that a court official had taken me to the court room via the lift even before the hearing started and during the hearing the Commissioner actually offered to read my statement himself because I was having obvious difficulties. The Commissioner refused to address issues of conflict of interest, or the rules
of evidence, or false statements.
When the decision came in the Commissioner wrote that I was “exceedingly ill” when I appeared before him but was “well-represented throughout” and he felt that he could not overturn the Tribunal decision.
The Somatisation claim stood as fact.

At this point I had almost decided to give up the struggle but the solicitors had attempted to “blackmail” us into giving up by saying that I should sign away my right to take any OP case to court for life or face the full costs of the defendants.

Knowing that the defendant had lied and that we had still not obtained the name of the chemicals or the full medical records I refused to sign away my case. The solicitors had promised to answer questions from the plaintiffs but failed to do so.
Then I had to change solicitors again in order to appeal the case under what they called the Part 24 Applications from the defendants and my luck changed for a while.
A paper from the new solicitors stated that I must have had no argument against the expert for the defence because I had not challenged his report.
Having not seen the report I asked for a copy.

There, in the defendant’s own report, was all the evidence I needed to support my case.

The employer’s staff had mixed two organophosphorus grain store chemicals in that tank and yet the defendant’s expert said that they had followed the label instructions - totally untrue. Even the science was wrong.
I sent detailed challenges to the report and copies of letters from then manufacturers and the regulators, showing that the mixture was actually illegal, to the new solicitors.
The problem was that they did not pass the information to the courts and in a court hearing the defence claims that my case was “exceedingly weak” went completely unchallenged. The Judge singled out my case and denied my right to appeal his decision. They even suggested that I was taking action against the wrong employer.
 I asked the lawyers what evidence they had placed before the judge but they refused to tell me, saying that scientists had claimed to be able to safely drink what I had been exposed to. One withdrew that claim immediately when
notified of experimental results.

Unknown to me there actually was an appeal.

I suspect that this was to ensure that all doors to justice were closed to me for I was not notified of the appeal until long after the time permitted to appeal the decision of the Appeal Judge, which of course was against me. I reported all the legal firms and barristers to their controlling bodies but no investigation took place.

The Police reported that almost a dozen potential crimes were potentially involved but refused to investigate on grounds of cost.

In my attempts to have the truth recognised I made a renewed claim for the Benefit, now with the added evidence about the illegal mixture.

In 2003 I was examined again.

The Benefits Agency doctor stated in our home that I had been poisoned, that the case represented the typical “Fragile Egg scenario” and that all I wanted was Natural Justice. He stated several times that I had peripheral neuropathy and that the only treatment available was that already being given by the GP and treating specialist.
He went away and spoke to the Poisons Unit and then wrote his, altered, report in which he stated that there was no peripheral neuropathy and quoted the Poisons Unit doctor as saying that I had not been poisoned but suffered from “a mind set that believes in poisoning”. Somatisation by another term.

They admit that the incident caused my disability for life but say I have not been poisoned and his assessment of 55% disability not only failed to include the cardio-respiratory and neurological effects but was also reduced to 30% by the examiner on the grounds that the bone and joint problems, the vision abnormalities, and the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity were “unrelated
to the incident” and unknown in poisoning. I requested that the false statements were withdrawn. They refused. I reported the two doctors to the General Medical Council who said that the Benefits Agency were responsible for the investigation. They claimed to find nothing wrong.

I appealed again on the grounds that the false statements were actually illegal but the Appeals Service threatened to “make things worse” for me if I went ahead with the appeal.

I did appeal anyway and repeatedly asked them to remove the false statements from the files. They refused.

In 2004 I found a company willing to test samples of one of the chemicals involved in the incident.

The insecticide had been mixed for use in a local grain store by a friend and then stored for 5 years. The tests showed that the organophosphorus insecticide had not broken down at all, even though the testing company itself had held the sample for a period equivalent to two official half-lives. In fact the diluted chemical had doubled in concentration from the expected level of the original dilution.

Concerned about the implications in the food supply and for occupational exposures I notified the authorities because this chemical has been added to harvested whole grains since the mid 1970s.

Apparently some processors, such as biscuit makers, have insisted that farmers add the chemical before they sell them the grain but the authorities claim that the chemical is not considered to be a food additive.
The Benefits Agency denied that the scientifically proven information was of any relevance despite their earlier reasons for denial being that the chemical would have broken down by the time of the incident.
Questions asked of ministers have so far gone unanswered.

I needed legal representation for the Appeal but could find no solicitor or barrister willing to help.

A Law Centre actually claimed to be unable to find anyone with sufficient skills for the task. The Legal Services Directory claimed that they had no less than four legal firms in the area that did such work. None of them did but one offered to act as a witness at the Tribunal and after examining the files suggested that the Tribunal proceedings should be recorded on video camera and wrote to the Appeals Service to ask if they would be doing the recording or me. There was no reply.
The solicitor also suggested that I created a file containing the supporting evidence for a paper in which I had listed all the supporting and opposing medical opinions. I produced three copies with almost 200 pages in each. One copy was for me as a record, one was for the Tribunal, and one for the solicitor.

On 19th November 2004 the solicitor arrived before the Tribunal members and I asked if we should seek permission before recording with the borrowed camera.

She said that it should begin before they arrived. When they came they also brought a nurse with them, perhaps they were expecting what happened? The only papers available were those in my newly created file of evidence. The Tribunal was told that if they continued on the basis of the false statements then it would be illegal. They continued.
An hour and a half into the proceedings the Chairman noticed the video camera and cried “Contempt of court”. I said that they should take me to court then because placing false statements in the file is also illegal but the Chairman was unmoved and said that even the notes taken by the solicitor were contempt of court. The solicitor wrote no more notes.

The medical examiner was described as an expert in organophosphorus poisoning but the chairman refused to allow me to know his qualifications or to question him on his expertise.

The examination showed that the loss of vibration sense was found in the wrists as well as in the ankles but I was too ill due to the effort taken and the effects of the perfumes they were wearing - despite the continuous use of my carbon-filtered air purifier. The nurse even had to help me undress.
The nurse was uncomfortable with the situation and my wife was crying for much of the time because of the way they were treating me. They were indifferent to it all and left with the nurse.
The solicitor removed the tape from the video recorder “for safe keeping” and the defendant in my civil case arrived before I had recovered enough to get fully dressed.
He expressed his surprise at the state I was in and gave the solicitor a lift back to her offices in the nearby town.

In late December 2004 a letter arrived from a senior partner in the solicitor’s firm in which he stated that the Regional Chairman of the Appeals Service had contacted him and repeated the Contempt of Court charge but suggested that they would not take action providing that the tape was sent to them.

Without any contact with me the tape was duly dispatched and permission was given to destroy it.
I protested and was told that I could be given a replacement tape if I wrote and asked for one. That was hardly the point given that it was destruction of evidence.

Exactly 8 weeks to the day after the Tribunal hearing the decision arrived.

They reported that at no time have I suffered with OP poisoning. Somatisation stands. They claimed that medical science does not support a link between Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and exposure to OPs. There is no evidence of a sufficient exposure to OPs and they claim that the symptoms listed are those experienced later than following the exposure.
Those symptoms are in fact still the same but slowly worsening and the list of symptoms was given to the various doctors in writing at every stage in the 13 years since the exposure.

Once again they say that the incident caused the illness, that the symptoms are real and are consistent with poisoning, that the symptoms are those of poisoning - but I have not been poisoned.

I wrote to ask for the decision to be set aside and have reported the deception to various bodies that supposedly protect patients and uphold the law.

It is unlikely that they will retreat from their position.

The Government was a co-defendant in the group sheep dip action.

The Government controlled the Committee on Toxicity that found no long-term effects from OPs.

The Government controlled the Legal Aid funding for the group action and that funding is provided for much of the work done by solicitors on all manner of cases.

The Government controls the National Health Service of which the Poisons Unit is an integral part but has direct funding links to the chemical companies.

The Government controls the Department of Works and Pensions and both the Health & Safety Executive and the Benefits Agency form part of that Department.

The Government, via the Lord Chancellor’s office controls the choice of Judges and Tribunal members in addition to controlling the availability of information and the Human Rights Act.

The election campaign for this Government was funded in part by the chemical companies.

The Committee for Standards in Public Life stated that the Government is responsible for the standards of conduct of Ministers.
Government advisers state that there is no evidence that pesticides cause harm to human health.

Those same advisers claim that those occupationally exposed are at greater risk.

Hiding poisoning in the occupationally exposed increases the difficulty for others in proving their cases and Government advisers now suggest that it is public “perception of risk” that induces poisoning symptoms.

We will soon discover the level at which the deception ends - if there is one.

Richard is Isle of Wight (UK) Region Coordinator for MCS Global

Richard's Website: www.geocities.com/oprus2001/
                Email:  isleofwight(at)mcs-global.org

Back to Stories          Next Story