The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker appealed the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") decision that the worker's claim is not acceptable. A panel met to consider the worker's appeal by file review held on August 11, 2026.

Issue

Is the claim acceptable?

Decision

The claim is not acceptable.

Background

On November 5, 2024, the worker provided a Worker Hearing Loss Report to the WCB, reporting gradual hearing loss which they related to their employment with the employer. The worker reported that the employer provided hearing protection, and their hearing was tested annually. The worker also noted some non-occupational noise exposure but indicated use of hearing protection when using home power tools and during occasional firearm use. In the Work History Summary, the worker reported working for the employer from September 1983 until their retirement in June 2013, and daily exposure to noise for 8 to 12 hours during that time. The worker noted their hearing was good to fair but that they noticed it began to decline. With the Report, the worker included a June 24, 2013 audiogram and an October 23, 2024 audiogram. The October 2024 audiogram indicated normal sloping to severe sensorineural hearing loss on the right and normal sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss on the left and recommended hearing aids for both ears.

When the WCB spoke with the worker on November 14, 2024, the worker confirmed the information submitted and provided details of their job duties for the employers listed on their work summary, noting they retired in 2015. With respect to their job duties with the employer, the worker noted exposure to noxious noise for 8 to 12 hours per day but indicated they wore either foam ear plugs or earmuffs, depending on their duties and would wear them the whole time they were working.

The employer submitted an Employer Hearing Loss Report to the WCB on January 20, 2025. The employer confirmed the worker was employed with them from September 9, 1983 until 2013 and during that time, was exposed to noise 8 to 12 hours per day and was provided hearing protection while employed. The employer provided copies of the worker’s hearing tests from 1983 to 2013.

The WCB placed a memorandum to file on January 21, 2025 indicating information in the WCB’s files noted noise level testing in 2011 indicated noise exposure of 96.5 dBA for the worker’s position and that hearing protection reduced this exposure to 88.5 dBA. The WCB confirmed this exposure was above the minimum threshold for an acceptable claim.

A WCB audiology consultant reviewed the worker's claim file on February 1, 2025. The audiologist reviewed the employer-provided hearing assessments for the worker from 1983 to 2013, and the audiograms submitted by the worker with their report. The audiologist provided that as the worker was not exposed to noise after retirement, the 2024 audiogram would not be considered. The audiologist concluded the final workplace hearing assessment conducted on June 7, 2013 noted hearing within normal limits in both ears and that the June 24, 2013 audiogram also found the worker’s hearing to be within normal limits. As such, the evidence indicated the worker did not have noise-induced hearing loss at the time their exposure to noise ended.

On March 5, 2025, the WCB advised the worker that the claim was not accepted as the evidence did not support a finding that they sustained an injury, being noise-induced hearing loss, due to their exposure to occupational noise.

On April 15, 2025, the worker requested Review Office reconsider the WCB’s decision, noting in their submission that “Chronic exposure to prolonged noise can lead to gradual hearing loss over weeks, months or years” and that they had worked for the employer for over 30 years in an “…extremely noisey (sic) environment.” The worker further noted that when they retired in 2013, they experienced the onset of tinnitus and hearing loss. On April 23, 2025, Review Office found the worker’s claim was not acceptable.

The worker appealed to the Appeal Commission on May 8, 2026 and a file review was arranged.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policy

The Appeal Commission and its panels are bound by The Workers Compensation Act (the "Act"), regulations under the Act and the policies established by the Workers Compensation Board of Directors. The legislative provisions in effect at the date of accident apply.

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.

The WCB Policy 44.20.50.20, Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (the "Policy") outlines the WCB's approach to claims arising from prolonged exposure to occupational noise that causes hearing loss. This policy provides in part that:

Not all hearing loss is caused by exposure to noise at work. A claim for noise-induced hearing loss is accepted by the WCB when a worker was exposed to hazardous noise at work for a minimum of two years, based generally upon an average of 85 decibels for 8 hours of exposure on a daily basis. For every increase in noise level of 3 decibels, the required exposure time will be reduced by half.

Worker's Position

The worker represented themself in their appeal and provided a written submission and additional evidence to the panel in advance of the hearing. The worker's position is that based on the available evidence, they were exposed to noise levels in the course of their job duties above the threshold set out in the Policy, and that because of that exposure, they sustained bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.

The worker's submission outlines the nature of their occupational noise exposure while working for the employer and relies on the evidence submitted as establishing that if hearing protection is removed, even for a short duration, its protective benefit is substantially reduced. The worker referenced information submitted that outlines that "The effect that loud sounds have on your hearing is cumulative. Repeated exposure to loud sounds and noise in earlier years could speed up age-related hearing loss in later life, more than what would be expected due to the natural process of aging." The worker also relied upon an August 28, 2025 report from a treating specialist and an October 14, 2025 report from the treating audiologist as confirming they had hearing loss prior to their retirement, and that hearing loss does not stop after noise exposure ends. For these reasons, the worker submits that the claim should be accepted.

Employer’s Position

The employer did not participate in the appeal.

Analysis

The issue under appeal is whether the claim is acceptable. For the panel to find the worker’s claim is acceptable, we would have to determine that the worker’s hearing loss is, on the balance of probabilities, the result of exposure to noise in the workplace. On the evidence before the panel, we were unable to make such a finding as outlined in the reasons that follow and therefore, the worker's appeal is denied.

The panel notes and accepts that the worker currently has bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, with evidence, as of October 23, 2024, indicating normal sloping to severe sensorineural hearing loss in the right ear and normal sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss in the right ear. However, as set out in Policy, not all hearing loss is caused by or the result of noise exposure in the workplace, and not all workers who are exposed to noxious noise in the workplace experience hearing loss as a result. As outlined in the Policy, for the WCB to accept a hearing loss claim based on occupational noise exposure, there must be not only evidence of sensorineural hearing loss, but also evidence of prolonged exposure to excessive noise in the workplace. The Policy establishes a threshold for acceptance of claims based on such exposure requiring that there be evidence of exposure to hazardous noise at work for a minimum of two years, based generally upon an average of 85 decibels for eight hours of daily exposure. The Policy further provides that every increase in noise levels of three decibels, reduces the required exposure time by half.

The panel therefore considered whether the evidence supports a finding that the worker's occupational exposure to noise was sufficient to meet the threshold as set out in the Policy. The panel accepts the conclusion reached by the WCB adjudicator as outlined in their file memorandum of January 21, 2025, that during the worker's employment from 1983 - 2013, they would have been exposed to noise above the threshold set out in the Policy, even considering the use of hearing protection. The file evidence from the WCB supports this conclusion. The panel noted that the worker's evidence is they retired from this employment in 2013 but continued doing similar work until 2015. There is insufficient evidence upon which the panel can make a finding as to the extent of worker's exposure to noxious noise in the workplace after June 2013, although we noted the worker's report that they continued to use hearing protection through to their retirement in 2015.

The panel also considered evidence as to the extent and timing of the worker's hearing loss, noting the employer provided hearing test results from September 12, 1983 through June 7, 2013. Our review of these test results indicates relatively stable right ear findings through to September 15, 2006 and relatively stable left ear findings through to July 27, 2010. The worker's right ear test results indicate worsening hearing at the highest Hz levels beginning in 2009, and the worker's left ear test results indicate worsening hearing at the highest Hz levels beginning in 2011. We noted the worker was tested by an audiologist on June 24, 2013 based on the workplace test findings and the worker's report of "constant tinnitus bilaterally". The panel considered the audiologist's findings which indicate hearing within normal limits bilaterally at all levels below 8000 Hz.

The panel noted the worker's hearing was not tested again until October 23, 2024, at which time their hearing had deteriorated bilaterally and binaural hearing aids were recommended to treat the worker's hearing loss and tinnitus.

The panel considered the report of the WCB audiology consultant of February 1, 2025. We noted their statement that "NIHL [Noise Induced Hearing Loss] begins with an audiometric notch pattern - (defined as a minimum 10dB decline and recovery) centred at 3k, 4k, and/or 6k Hz." The consultant outlined their opinion that the worker's hearing thresholds through 4000 Hz were "within normal limits in both ears" at the time of the final workplace testing on June 7, 2013 and that the worker's hearing thresholds at 3000-6000 Hz were "within normal limits in both ears" as found during the June 24, 2013 audiological testing. We noted the audiology consultant's conclusion that "NIHL was not present in either ear at the end of [the worker's] confirmed noise exposure in 2013." The panel accepts and relies on this opinion.

While the worker's treating audiologist and specialist have offered opinions that the worker's hearing loss is in keeping with noise exposure, it is not clear that those opinions are based on a complete review of all the available evidence. The panel finds these opinions are not supported by the evidence from the audiological testing most proximate to the worker's exposure to noxious occupational noise. The panel also noted the more recent hearing testing indicates a significant decline in the worker's hearing at all frequencies from 2013, despite the absence of any confirmed, ongoing noise exposure beyond June 2013. The panel is unable to attribute this subsequent decline in the worker's hearing to their exposure in the workplace prior to June 2013.

Based on the totality of the evidence, and on the standard of a balance of probabilities, the panel is unable to find that the worker’s hearing loss is the result of exposure to noise in the workplace. Therefore, the claim is not acceptable, and the worker’s appeal is dismissed.

Panel Members

K. Dyck, Presiding Officer
J. Peterson, Commissioner
S. Gordon, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

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

Signed at Winnipeg this 19th day of August, 2026