WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD
APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
DECISION NUMBER: 20100195
OBJECTION BY: Worker
PARTICIPANTS: Worker, Worker’s representative, Employer, Employer’s representative
HEARING: N/A
ISSUE
The worker is objecting to the September 11, 2009 decision which denied entitlement to occupationally-related 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 Workers’ Report Occupational Noise Induced Hearing Loss form.
The file information confirms the worker has been employed as a machine operator for approximately 15 years. The worker is claiming for NIHL as a result of her occupational exposures while employed for the above period of time.
The operating area concluded a November 26, 2008 audiogram supported noise-induced hearing loss. However, following receipt of a noise survey, it was concluded the worker had not been exposed to sufficient noise at work to meet entitlement criteria.
The worker objected to the above decision, claiming her occupational exposures were responsible for her NIHL. Upon receipt of the worker’s completed Objection Form, the adjudicator upheld the decision to deny entitlement 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 requested a decision based upon the file information. The employer participated 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.
The file record confirms the worker, 63 years of age at the time of her claim for benefits in November 2008, had been employed as a pillow machine operator for approximately 13 years, since February 1995.
I note the November 26, 2008 audiogram confirms a hearing loss of 31 dB on the right side and 38.5 dB on the left side. It was documented the pattern of hearing loss appeared to be consistent with a NIHL.
The was seen by an otolaryngologist in December 2008 who recorded the worker had been seen for consultation regarding bilateral earaches which she had had for many years – she also reported complaining of gradual hearing loss over the years.
Policy 16-01-04, Noise-Induced Hearing Loss, On/After January 2, 1990, records the following in part:
Equivalencies
The minimum hazardous noise exposure of 90 dB(A) for 8 hours per day for 5 years has the following equivalencies (1):
84 dB(A) for 40 years
89 dB(A) for 7 years
85 dB(A) for 28 years
91 dB(A) for 3.5 years
86 dB(A) for 20 years
92 dB(A) for 2.5 years
87 dB(A) for 14 years
93 dB(A) for 1.8 years
88 dB(A) for 10 years
94 dB(A) for 1.25 years
The employer objected to the allowance of the worker’s claim and submitted a noise survey conducted on August 31, 2009. Test results revealed ambient noise in the room where the pillow machine was located were 47.8 dB. It also indicated sound levels while the machine was operating were 73.2 dB.
Following contact with the worker’s representative, it was noted the worker had expressed concern at the relocation of the pillow machine to an alternate location, which was larger, following the worker’s claim for benefits.
Measurements of the current pillow machine room were taken at Bright Spot and the room size was noted to be 126 square feet, compared to the 151 square feet at the Lisgar St. location. I find the difference in square footage to be minimal and I concur with the audiometrist and further find there would be an insignificant difference in the reverberant noise measured.
Following careful consideration of the file evidence, I do not find the worker was exposed to sufficient noise to meet policy criteria. At a maximum, presuming the pillow machine was operating at all times, the worker was only exposed to occupational noise over a period of 13 years at 73.2 dB. At a minimum, the exposure criteria which would be required to be established for entitlement to be granted is 84dB over a period of 40 years, according to Policy 16-01-04.
CONCLUSION
I conclude on the basis of my examination of the evidence that the degree of occupational noise exposure is insufficient to meet the criteria as outlined under WSIB policy.
The worker’s objection is therefore denied.
DATED November 29, 2010
L. Diaz
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Branch