The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker appealed the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") decision that they are not entitled to hearing aids. A teleconference hearing took place on April 15, 2026 to consider the worker's appeal.

Issue

Is there entitlement for hearing aids?

Decision

There is entitlement for hearing aids.

Background

The worker submitted a Worker Hearing Loss Report to the WCB on November 20, 2008, reporting gradual hearing loss that they first noticed in the 1980s and related to their job duties with the employer. The worker reported wearing hearing protection since the 1980s and listed non-occupational noise exposures that included snowmobiling, home power tool use and right-handed gun use for hunting. The worker also noted they were a member of the military for approximately 6 years. In the Work History Summary, the worker indicated that their hearing was "excellent" upon beginning their employment with the employer in 1974 and that their hearing was "not very good" when that employment ended in 2008. The worker described daily exposure to noise in that employment.

On November 27, 2008, the WCB received a report from the treating Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) specialist who noted they saw the worker on January 23, 2008 and provided a copy of that report. The worker reported to the ENT specialist that they experienced progressive hearing loss for years, without tinnitus, and that they had a history of noise exposure with the employer but used hearing protection. The worker also reported firearm use to the specialist. The ENT specialist examined the worker and reviewed the audiogram, concluding the worker had “…a mild high tone sensorineural loss in the right ear and a slightly more pronounced loss in the left.” The specialist provided the worker’s hearing loss was “…compatible with noise exposure.”

The WCB received audiograms dated from 1996 to 2005 from the employer on December 2, 2008, which included a March 10, 2005 referral report from the testing audiologist recommending the worker consistently wear hearing protection due to a threshold shift in the left ear from their baseline audiogram. The employer submitted an Employer Hearing Loss Report to the WCB on December 4, 2008, with a copy of noise level testing conducted on July 24, 2008. The employer noted in their report that the worker was exposed to varied amounts of noise, both intermittent and continuous, for 1 hour per day from 1974 to 2000 and one-half hour per day from 2000 to 2005. The employer further noted they provided hearing protection to the worker since 1993, and stated the worker was an avid hunter.

An audiologist who assessed the worker on May 12, 2009 noted the audiogram indicated bilateral sensorineural high frequency hearing loss, worse on the left. The audiologist noted the worker's report of exposure to high levels of noise at work and recommended the worker trial a left hearing aid.

A WCB ENT specialist reviewed the worker’s file on July 9, 2009 and noted the first sign of noise induced hearing loss was in the 1996 audiograms. The specialist noted asymmetry in the worker's hearing loss and that the worker did not require a hearing aid for their right ear, and concluded the need for left hearing aid arose out of the worker’s right-handed firearm use.

On August 27, 2009, the WCB advised the worker their claim for noise induced hearing loss is accepted, but they are not entitled to coverage for hearing aids. The worker requested Review Office reconsider the WCB’s decision regarding entitlement to hearing aids. In their submission, the worker disputed that they were an avid hunter and indicated they rarely hunted. As such, they believed the decision their hearing loss was asymmetrical due to right-handed firearm use was incorrect and that they should be provided with hearing aids. Review Office determined on July 27, 2020 that the worker is not entitled to hearing aids, as noise induced hearing loss was typically symmetrical and the greater left hearing loss likely was due to firearm use, even if that was limited. Because the worker did not require a right hearing aid and the need for a left hearing aid was not a result of the workplace noise exposure, Review Office found the worker is not entitled to hearing aids.

The worker’s representative filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on January 20, 2026 and the Commission arranged a hearing. After the hearing, the appeal panel requested additional information before discussing the case further. Upon receipt of the requested information from the worker's representative, the panel met again on May 20, 2026 to render a decision.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policy

The Workers Compensation Act (the "Act"), regulations made pursuant to the Act and the policies established by the WCB Board of Directors bind the panel in its decision-making. The legislative provisions that apply are those in effect at the date of accident as established by the WCB. Section 4(1) of the Act provides that where a worker suffers personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, compensation shall be paid. Section 27(1) of the Act states that the WCB "…may provide a worker with such medical aid as the board considers necessary to cure and provide relief from an injury resulting from an accident."

The WCB established Policy 44.20.50.20.02, Hearing Loss which outlines the WCB's approach to claims arising from long-term exposure to occupational noise that causes hearing loss. This policy provides, regarding coverage for hearing aids, that "When a claim for hearing loss is accepted and a specialist recommends the use of a hearing aid(s), a worker will be entitled to a suitable hearing aid(s) of a reasonable cost as approved by the Workers Compensation Board."

Worker's Position

A worker advisor represented the worker in the hearing and outlined the worker's position in their oral submissions and a written submission provided to the panel in advance of the hearing. The worker offered testimony in the hearing, in response to questions posed by members of the panel.

The worker's position is that they are entitled to hearing aids because the WCB accepted their claim in relation to hearing loss caused by occupational exposure to noxious noise and their treatment provided recommended the use of hearing aids to address that hearing loss. The worker advisor submitted that the Policy in effect at the date of accident provides that when the WCB accepts a claim for hearing loss and a specialist recommends the use of hearing aids, a worker is entitled to hearing aids. The worker advisor noted there are no other criteria to meet to establish that entitlement.

The worker advisor noted the worker's hearing was assessed in 2025, resulting in a recommendation from the treating audiologist that the worker use binaural hearing aids. The worker advisor noted this report was not provided to the panel and was not in the WCB claim file. The panel requested and received the May 9, 2025 report from the worker advisor following the hearing. The report provides that the audiogram results of that date indicate that the worker has moderate sensorineural hearing loss bilaterally and recommends binaural amplification.

Employer's Position

The employer did not participate in the appeal.

Analysis

This appeal arises out of the WCB decision that the worker is not entitled to hearing aids in relation to their compensable NIHL claim. For the worker's appeal to succeed, the panel would have to find that the worker requires hearing aids to address the effects of their hearing loss. As detailed in the reasons that follow, the panel was able to make such a finding and therefore the worker's appeal is granted.

The panel noted the WCB accepted the worker's claim in relation to occupational noise exposure, establishing an accident date of 1996, which aligns with the earliest audiogram evidence that the worker has NIHL. For a claim arising between May 29, 1985 and March 31, 2000, where the initial adjudication occurs on or after October 1, 1995 and the worker notified the WCB of the claim before October 1, 2013, Policy 44.20.50.20.02 applies. This policy provides that when the WCB accepts a claim of hearing loss and a specialist recommends the use of hearing aids, the worker will be entitled to suitable hearing aids at a reasonable cost as approved by the WCB. The panel finds that this provision is not discretionary; rather, it is a clear statement that if the criteria are met, the worker is entitled to hearing aids.

In the present case, the worker notified the WCB of their claim on November 20, 2008 and when the claim was first adjudicated on August 27, 2009, the WCB established February 5, 1996 as the accident date. The Policy described above therefore applies to the worker's claim.

The WCB determined on August 27, 2009 that the worker was exposed to noxious levels of noise while working in Manitoba and accepted the claim. At that time, there was a recommendation by the treating ENT specialist that the worker trial hearing aids and a recommendation from the treating audiologist for a left hearing aid. Despite the Policy in effect at that time, the WCB found the worker was not entitled to hearing aids. Most recently, there is a further recommendation, dated May 9, 2025, for use of binaural hearing aids to address the worker's sensorineural hearing loss.

The panel finds that the provisions of the Policy are clear, and the criteria for entitlement to hearing aids are met in the worker's claim. The WCB accepted the worker's claim in relation to NIHL and a specialist recommended hearing aids to address the worker's hearing loss.

Based on the evidence before the panel, and applying the standard of a balance of probabilities, we are satisfied that the worker is entitled to hearing aids. The worker's appeal is granted.

Panel Members

K. Dyck, Presiding Officer
J. MacKay, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

K. Dyck - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 25th day of May, 2026