WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD
APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
DECISION NUMBER: 20100179
OBJECTION BY: Worker
PARTICIPANTS: Worker, Worker’s representative
EMPLOYER: Out of business
ISSUE
The worker is objecting to the adjudicator’s September 24, 2008 and May 31, 2010 decisions which denied entitlement to noise induced hearing loss (NIHL).
HOW THE ISSUE ARISES
The claim was registered with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) upon receipt of the Worker’s Report Occupational Noise Induced Hearing Loss form. The worker, 62 years of age at the time of the April 2008 audiogram, is relating his hearing loss to his employment as a production trainee, from June 1975 until February 1978. For this brief period, the worker indicated he was required to work in all parts of the plant. Effective 1978, the worker became employed as a chemical engineer, working in an office setting.
Initially, the operating area denied entitlement to NIHL on the basis the October 1995 audiogram did not support sufficient hearing loss. However, given that this particular audiogram was not performed by an audiologist, the worker’s claim was subsequently reconsidered and once again denied in May 2010 on the basis exposure criteria had not been established.
The worker objected to the above decision, contending his hearing loss was occupationally related. Upon receipt of the worker’s completed Objection Form, the decision to deny entitlement to NIHL remained unchanged and the worker’s file was referred to the Appeals Branch for further review.
AUTHORITY
Workplace Safety and Insurance Act:
Section 2(1)
Section 15
Operational Policies:
11-01-01 Adjudicative Process
11-01-02 Decision Making
16-01-04 Noise-Induced Hearing Loss, On/After January 2, 1990
RESOLUTION METHOD AND PROCESS
The worker’s representative concurred with a decision based upon the file information and an additional submission. The employer did not participate in the appeal.
ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE
In considering this objection, I have had regard for the evidence on file, the applicable law and policy, and for the arguments presented.
When considering a claim for occupational noise induced hearing loss, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board uses a worker’s pure tone average, which is an average of the hearing loss in the speech frequencies. The calculation is a simple average of the 500 Hertz (Hz), 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz, and 3000 Hz frequencies. For entitlement to be granted there must be an average of at least 22.5 decibels (dB) of loss bilaterally, and the pattern of hearing loss must be consistent with noise induced sensorineural hearing loss. In addition, the worker must meet the exposure criteria, which is continuous exposure to at least 90 dB (A) of occupational noise for 8 hours per day, for a minimum of 5 years, or the equivalent.
The operating area determined in a May 2010 decision the worker had not met the exposure criteria for NIHL. It was noted the Ministry of Labour report conducted at the worksite recorded all worksites monitored, with one exception, were below the 90 dB on a continuous basis. In arriving at the above decision, the operating area considered the intermittent nature of the high noise, combined with the fact that the worker was in and out of the noisy areas, and sometimes out of noise completely, unlike an actual machine operator. The worker’s representative contended the worker’s exposure to occupational noise was actually greater than what had been accepted by the operating area.
Following review of the worker’s file, this ARO informed the worker’s representative the predominant concerns with the worker’s claim for occupationally-related NIHL were actually in relation to the significant 30 year delay in seeking medical attention, and the general information revealed in the 1995 audiogram in conjunction with the worker’s written statement.
The October 5, 1995 audiogram, conducted 17 years after his last exposure, provided the following values:
Right Ear Left Ear
500 Hertz 10 10
1000 Hertz 10 10
2000 Hertz 10 10
3000 Hertz 30 25
Sum: 60 55
Divided by 4: 15 13.75
The April 19, 2008 audiogram, conducted 30 years after the worker’s last exposure, provided the following hearing loss:
Right Ear Left Ear
500 Hertz 5 10
1000 Hertz 20 15
2000 Hertz 30 30
3000 Hertz 50 50
Sum: 105 105
Divided by 4: 26.25 26.25
When calculating the pure tone averages for workers over 60 years of age, the WSIB includes a correction factor for aging, i.e. presbycusis. Hearing loss as a result of aging is not compensable. One half decibel is deducted from the average for each year a worker is over 60 years of age. The worker was born in November 1945 and the audiogram was performed on April 19, 2008. The presbycusis factor to be deducted from the calculation is 1.5 dB, resulting in the following:
Right ear: 26.25 dB – 1.5 = 24.75 dB
Left ear: 26.25 dB – 1.5 = 24.75 dB
I note the 2008 audiogram was conducted 30 years after the worker’s last exposure. Following 1978, the worker was employed in an office setting and any occupationally-related hearing loss therefore ceased. There is no contemporaneous medical information to support any degree of hearing loss at or closely following that time.
The file information confirms the 1995 audiogram was conducted, according to the worker, at McMaster University while attending an Occupational Health and Safety Course. Although I will not use or reference the specific dB levels noted in the audiogram, it does nonetheless provide pertinent information insofar as the general degree of loss incurred at the time. In addition, the 1995 audiogram also confirms the worker’s minimal hearing loss was compatible with NIHL.
More importantly, in conjunction with the 1995 audiogram, I note the worker indicated in his September 9, 2008 submission he decided not to purchase a hearing aid or file for benefits in 1995, at the time of his course, as he felt his hearing was still adequate – this was 17 years after his last exposure. Since then, he indicated his hearing deteriorated and consequently, he sought medical attention in 2008.
Progressive hearing loss from occupational noise exposure ceases when an individual is removed from noise levels potentially injurious to hearing, unless there is workplace re-exposure or some other factor. As a result, although the worker indicated his hearing loss had deteriorated since 1995, resulting in him seeking medical attention in 2008, any hearing loss beyond 1978 would not be considered to be related to his occupational exposures.
Consequently, having regard for the totality of the evidence, i.e. the significant 30 year gap in medical attention since the last exposure to occupational noise, the lack of reporting of hearing-related problems to the WSIB, any medical practitioner or the employer during this considerable gap in time, combined with the general information noted in the 1995 audiogram, and most especially, the worker’s statement that his hearing had still been adequate in 1995, but had deteriorated thereafter, I find the worker’s occupational exposures were an insignificant contributing factor to the development of his NIHL.
CONCLUSION
I conclude on the basis of my examination of the evidence that the worker’s occupational exposures from June 1975 until February 1978 were not a significant contributing factor to the development of his hearing loss.
The worker’s objection is therefore denied.
DATED November 30, 2010
L. Diaz
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Branch