Derek Achong

A fe­male fire of­fi­cer, who was al­leged­ly in­jured while test­ing a wood­en lad­der ear­li­er this year, has made good on her threat to sue the State for com­pen­sa­tion. 

In May, 38-year-old Melanie Valen­tine, through her lawyer Richard Jag­gasar, sent a pre-ac­tion pro­to­col threat­en­ing a per­son­al in­jury law­suit. The Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al sought sev­er­al ex­ten­sions be­fore it re­spond­ed in Ju­ly and de­nied any wrong­do­ing and safe­ty con­cerns re­lat­ed to the lad­der. 

Jag­gasar filed the case yes­ter­day morn­ing, and it has been as­signed to High Court Judge Joan Charles. 

In her court fil­ings, Jag­gasar claimed his client, who was last as­signed to the T&T Fire Ser­vice (TTFS) Head­quar­ters on Wrighton Road, Port-of-Spain, suf­fered an in­jury to her fore­arm while test­ing the lad­der on Jan­u­ary 10. 

“While con­duct­ing checks on the lad­der the ex­tend­ing sec­tion slipped and slammed on­to her right wrist and both fore­arms,” he said. 

Valen­tine was placed on sick leave but was forced to re­turn to work on Feb­ru­ary 5 when the leave end­ed al­though she had not ful­ly re­cov­ered.

Jag­gasar claimed the in­jury was ex­ac­er­bat­ed when she was placed on sen­try du­ty, which re­quired her to pre­pare writ­ten re­ports. 

On March 4, Valen­tine vis­it­ed a doc­tor spe­cial­is­ing in sports med­i­cine and in­juries and was di­ag­nosed with neu­ro­prax­ia of the right ra­di­al nerve in her fore­arm. 

She was ini­tial­ly grant­ed 28 days of sick leave based on the di­ag­no­sis but re­mained on ex­tend­ed sick leave af­ter­wards.  

Jag­gasar ref­er­enced pro­cure­ment cor­re­spon­dence for the lad­der, in which the com­pa­ny which pro­cured it was in­formed that the lad­der met Unit­ed States spec­i­fi­ca­tions, not the British spec­i­fi­ca­tions used by the TTFS. The com­pa­ny was al­so in­formed of retro­fitting work that had to be done on the lad­der to make it com­pli­ant. 

“Re-en­gi­neer­ing the head of the lad­der by chang­ing around the head pul­ley to al­low the ex­tend­ing from the op­po­si­tion side,” the let­ter said. 

Jag­gasar said al­though an of­fi­cial re­port was made on the in­ci­dent that caused the in­jury no ac­tion was tak­en about the lad­der. 

“As the em­ploy­er, the TTFS took no pos­i­tive thought for the safe­ty of its work­ers and the claimant in light of what was known or ought to have rea­son­ably known,” he said.

He claimed the TTFS was neg­li­gent by fail­ing to pro­vide a safe work­ing en­vi­ron­ment. 

Valen­tine is seek­ing com­pen­sa­tion for her in­jury and her con­tin­u­ing med­ical bills as well as a de­c­la­ra­tion that the State breached its statu­to­ry du­ty un­der the Oc­cu­pa­tion­al Safe­ty and Health Act (OSH Act). 

The is­sue of the pro­cure­ment of 20 wood­en lad­ders for $999,000 arose last Oc­to­ber in re­sponse to a Free­dom of In­for­ma­tion Act (FOIA) re­quest from busi­ness­man In­shan Ish­mael. 

Chief Fire Of­fi­cer Arnold Bris­to de­fend­ed the pur­chase, which he not­ed was done un­der the tenure of his pre­de­ces­sor, as well as the type of lad­der pur­chased. 

“The stan­dard in Trinidad and To­ba­go Fire Ser­vice lad­ders has al­ways been in­te­gral and wood­en lad­ders have al­ways been a key el­e­ment in our or­ga­ni­za­tion’s ap­pa­ra­tus,” he ex­plained.

“The stan­dard fire truck ap­pli­ance would nor­mal­ly be re­quired to car­ry three lad­ders, a first-floor lad­der, a 13.5-me­ter ex­ten­sion lad­der, as well as a 10.5-me­ter ex­ten­sion lad­der. It has al­ways been the choice of the Fire Ser­vice to have wood lad­ders be­cause wood does not con­duct elec­tric­i­ty.”

Bris­tow said the lad­ders are be­ing used and the on­ly set­back was the mod­i­fi­ca­tion of trucks to ac­com­mo­date them.

In Par­lia­ment on April 12, Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty Min­is­ter Fitzger­ald Hinds said he had no in­for­ma­tion to sug­gest that the lad­ders were un­safe for use. He al­so de­nied that the lad­ders breached the pro­vi­sions of the OSH Act.