The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

An Appeal Panel hearing was held on April 4, 2001, at the claimant's request. The Panel discussed this appeal on several occasions, the last one being October 18, 2001.

Issue

Whether or not the claim for noise induced hearing loss is acceptable.

Decision

That the claim for noise induced hearing loss is acceptable.

Background

In March 2000, the claimant submitted an application for noise induced hearing loss to the Workers Compensation Board (WCB).

On his Worker's Claim for Hearing Loss form, the claimant stated that he first became aware of a hearing problem in 1988 and that his hearing loss gradually became worse. The claimant noted that there was a history of deafness/hearing impairment in his family, namely his father who was a construction worker and truck driver. The claimant indicated that the noise at his work place was continuous and that he did not use hearing protection. The claimant attributed his hearing loss difficulties to his work experience in general. Information obtained from the employer confirmed that the claimant drove a truck with a diesel engine and that he was exposed to loud noise 11 hours per day.

On September 22, 1995, an otolaryngologist assessed the claimant's hearing loss. The specialist noted that the claimant worked with the accident employer for over 25 years and that he noticed hearing loss and tinnitus, more marked on the right for over 10 years. Audiometric testing showed a relatively flat bilateral neurosensory hearing loss, with some improvement at 8000 Hz bilaterally. The specialist felt that this might suggest that some of the claimant's hearing loss was related to noise exposure.

An audiogram performed on September 11, 1996, noted, "Bilateral loss whose configuration is not consistent with a noise induced loss."

The claimant was assessed on April 17, 2000 by an audiologist who reported that the claimant had been exposed to occupational noise in the past 48 hours. The noise source was a diesel truck, although the claimant drove the truck with the windows closed and cab noise was minimal. Puretone air and bone conduction audiometry revealed a mild low frequency sensorineural hearing loss, sloping to a moderate-severe mid-frequency sensorineural hearing loss and rising to a mild sensorineural hearing loss in the high frequencies. Cursory otoscopy was generally unremarkable. Tympanometry revealed normal middle ear pressure and tympanic membrance compliance for the right ear. A hermetic seal could not be obtained for the left ear.

The claimant underwent a complete audiological assessment on November 30, 2000, which was arranged through the WCB.

On December 19, 2000, a WCB consultant otolaryngologist reviewed all the file information and concluded that the claimant's hearing loss was not noise induced but was most likely hereditary in nature noting that the claimant's father had hearing problems as well. On December 20, 2000, primary adjudication advised the claimant that the medical evidence did not support a cause and effect relationship between his hearing loss and exposure to noise at work. On January 15, 2001, the claimant appealed the decision to Review Office.

In a decision dated February 2, 2001, Review Office determined that the claim for noise induced hearing loss was not acceptable. Review Office accepted the opinion expressed by the WCB's consultant otolaryngologist that the claimant's audiograms did not support a noise induced cause for his loss in hearing and that this was consistent with the commentary made by the audiologist who tested the claimant in 1996. On February 24, 2001, the claimant appealed Review Office's decision and a non-oral file review was arranged.

Following its meeting on April 4, 2001, the Appeal Panel requested that an occupational assessment (noise level survey) be carried out at the claimant's work site.

The Panel met again on May 18th and 23, 2001 to discuss the case in light of information that was received from an occupational hygienist from Workplace Safety and Health who submitted noise levels in the truck driving industry. Based on this information, the Appeal Panel determined that a Medical Review Panel (MRP) would be convened instead of the occupational assessment. A MRP was later held on September 4, 2001, and the results were distributed to the claimant for comment. On October 18, 2001, the Panel met to render its final decision on the issue under appeal.

Reasons

This case involved a worker who has suffered hearing loss. After a number of years of gradual loss, he filed a compensation claim in March 2000, attributing his problems to his many years of driving a noisy truck.

His claim was not accepted on the basis that no causal link could be established. An appeal to the Review Office was not successful for him. He then appealed to this commission.

The issue before the Panel was whether or not his claim for noise-induced hearing loss was acceptable.

For his appeal to be successful, the Panel would have to determine that his medical problems arose out of and in the course of his employment, as required by section 4(1) of The Workers Compensation Act.

We did come to that determination.

After hearing the testimony of the claimant and reviewing the file, we were unable to come to a conclusion. There were conflicting medical opinions on file, with one medical specialist and one audiologist of the view that his hearing loss was not consistent with noise-induced loss; and another specialist and audiologist expressing the opposite view: his hearing loss was noise-induced.

We were of the view that further audiometric testing was required to help us in our deliberation. Pursuant to Section 67(3) of the Act, we referred this to a Medical Review Panel to assist us in determining the source of the hearing loss.

The Medical Review Panel came to the following conclusions:

"The Panelists agree that, at least in part, [the claimant's] loss was caused by his exposure to noise at work while employed as a truck driver."

"Despite the fact that [the claimant's] father and several siblings have hearing loss, it is not possible to state that this confirms that there is a familial hearing loss disorder.

"Based on the supplied audiograms, the Panelists believe it is probable that there was a pre-existing hearing loss at the 1000 hertz level, which was probably asymptomatic.

"The Panelists agree that the hearing loss at the 4000 hertz level is consistent with noise induced hearing loss.

"The Panelists agree that based on the interview with [the claimant], and the supplied noise level assessments performed in similar vehicles to those in which [the claimant] was employed, and in fact is still employed, he has been exposed to a significantly noisy environment."

We found these conclusions to be very persuasive and concluded that the claimant's hearing loss is work-related.

Accordingly, his appeal is allowed.

Panel Members

T. Sargeant, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, B. Miller

T. Sargeant - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 30th day of October, 2001