Download noise induced hearing loss

NOISE INDUCED
HEARING LOSS
BC
BC LEGAL
B R I N G I N G C L AR I T Y
THE QUANTUM GUIDE
2ND EDITION
Page 1
READY RECKONER TABLE: AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS (WITHOUT 10% UPLIFT) AGE NIHL (dB) Slight Some Moderate Severe Page 2 TINNITUS Up to 30 31‐35 36‐40 41‐45 46‐50 51‐55 56‐60 61‐65 66‐70 71+ None £5,150 £4,980 £4,825 £4,665 £4,505 £4,345 £4,185 £4,030 £3,870 £3,710 Slight/ £9,250 £8,820 £8,390 £7,965 £7,535 £7,110 £6,680 £6,255 £5,830 £5,400 Mild £11,000 £10,705 £10,410 £10,115 £9,820 £9,525 £9,230 £8,930 £8,635 £8,340 Moderate £20,890 £19,690 £18,490 £17,290 £16,090 £14,890 £13,690 £12,490 £11,290 £10,090 Severe £33,500 £32,200 £30,900 £29,600 £28,300 £27,000 £25,700 £24,400 £23,100 £21,800 None £6,970 £6,800 £6,640 £6,480 £6,325 £6,165 £6,005 £5,845 £5,685 £5,530 Slight/ £10,160 £9,835 £9,510 £9,180 £8,855 £8,530 £8,200 £7,875 £7,545 £7,220 Mild £11,000 £10,815 £10,620 £10,425 £10,230 £10,030 £9,835 £9,640 £9,445 £9,250 Moderate £21,800 £20,600 £19,400 £18,200 £17,000 £15,800 £14,600 £13,400 £12,200 £11,000 Severe £33,500 £32,310 £31,110 £29,910 £28,710 £27,510 £26,310 £25,110 £23,910 £22,710 None £17,255 £16,455 £15,660 £14,865 £14,070 £13,275 £12,480 £11,680 £10,885 £10,090 Slight/ £18,770 £17,845 £16,915 £15,980 £15,050 £14,120 £13,185 £12,255 £11,325 £10,390 Mild £20,280 £19,205 £18,140 £17,080 £16,015 £14,950 £13,885 £12,825 £11,760 £10,695 Moderate £21,800 £20,600 £19,400 £18,200 £17,000 £15,800 £14,600 £13,400 £12,200 £11,000 Severe £33,500 £32,420 £31,320 £30,220 £29,120 £28,020 £26,920 £25,820 £24,720 £23,620 None £21,800 £21,290 £20,785 £20,280 £19,780 £19,275 £18,770 £18,265 £17,760 £17,255 Slight/ £24,730 £24,090 £23,465 £22,835 £22,210 £21,580 £20,955 £20,330 £19,700 £19,075 Mild £27,655 £26,890 £26,140 £25,390 £24,640 £23,890 £23,140 £22,390 £21,640 £20,890 Moderate £30,580 £29,690 £28,820 £27,945 £27,075 £26,200 £25,330 £24,455
£23,580 £22,710 Severe £33,500 £32,490 £31,495 £30,500 £29,505 £28,510 £27,515 £26,520 £25,523 £24,530 READY RECKONER TABLE: AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS (WITH 10% UPLIFT) AGE NIHL (dB) Slight (up to 15 dB) Some (16 to 30 dB) Moderate (31 to 45 dB) Severe (46+ dB) Page 3 TINNITUS Up to 30 31‐35 36‐40 41‐45 46‐50 51‐55 56‐60 61‐65 66‐70 71+ None £5,665 £5,480 £5,305 £5,130 £4,955 £4,780 £4,605 £4,430 £4,255 £4,080 Slight/
occasional £10,175 £9,700 £9,230 £8,760 £8,290 £7,820 £7,350 £6,880 £6,410 £5,940 Mild £12,100 £11,775 £11,450 £11,125 £10,800 £10,475 £10,150 £9,825 £9,500 £9,175 Moderate £22,980 £21,660 £20,340 £19,020 £17,700 £16,380 £15,060 £13,740 £12,420 £11,100 Severe £36,850 £35,420 £33,990 £32,560 £31,130 £29,700 £28,270 £26,840 £25,410 £23,980 None £7,665 £7,480 £7,305 £7,130 £6,955 £6,780 £6,605 £6,430 £6,255 £6,080 Slight/
occasional £11,175 £10,820 £10,460 £10,100 £9,740 £9,380 £9,020 £8,660 £8,300 £7,940 Mild £12,100 £11,895 £11,680 £11,465 £11,250 £11,035 £10,820 £10,605 £10,390 £10,175 Moderate £23,980 £22,660 £21,340 £20,020 £18,700 £17,380 £16,060 £14,740 £13,420 £12,100 Severe £36,850 £35,540 £34,220 £32,900 £31,580 £30,260 £28,940 £27,620 £26,300.00 £24,980 None £18,980 £18,100 £17,225 £16,350 £15,475 £14,600 £13,725 £12,850 £11,975 £11,100 Slight/
occasional £20,645 £19,630 £18,605 £17,580 £16,555 £15,530 £14,505 £13,480 £12,455 £11,430 Mild £22,310 £21,125 £19,955 £18,785 £17,615 £16,445 £15,275 £14,105 £12,935 £11,765 Moderate £23,980 £22,660 £21,340 £20,020 £18,700 £17,380 £16,060 £14,740 £13,420 £12,100 Severe £36,850 £35,660 £34,450 £33,240 £32,030 £30,820 £29,610 £28,400 £27,190 £25,980 None £23,980 £23,420 £22,865 £22,310 £21,755 £21,200 £20,645 £20,090 £19,535 £18,980 Slight/
occasional £27,200 £26,500 £25,810 £25,120 £24,430 £23,740 £23,050 £22,360 £21,670 £20,980 Mild £30,420 £29,580 £28,755 £27,930 £27,105 £26,280 £25,455 £24,630 £23,805 £22,980 Moderate £33,640 £32,660 £31,700 £30,740 £29,780 £28,820 £27,860 £26,900 £25,940 £24,980 Severe £36,850 £35,740 £34,645 £33,550 £32,455 £31,360 £30,265 £29,170 £28,075 £26,980 NIHL PSLA Ready Reckoner
Explanatory Notes:
Page 4
Page 4
1.
The highest figure in red bold (bottom left) is
the upper bracket of the 12th edition of the JC
Guidelines. The lowest award (top right corner)
represents HHJ Inglis’ view in the Nottingham
and Derbyshire Deafness Litigation [2007] EWHC
B1 (QB) [127] that the lowest award for NIHL was
likely to be in the region of £3,000 (adjusted
for inflation). The first table shows these figures
without the 10% uplift, the second table shows
these figures with the 10% uplift.
2.
It is assumed that awards at the bottom end
of the JC bracket will involve cases where (i)
the claimant was elderly and likely to have
experienced some hearing loss anyway; and (ii)
there was limited hearing loss and no tinnitus. The
lower bracket figure is therefore placed in the top
right hand corner of the table (claimants aged
70+ / limited hearing loss and no tinnitus).
3.
Conversely, the upper bracket figure occupies
the bottom left hand side of the table (claimants
aged up to 40 with severe hearing loss and
severe tinnitus).
4.
Estimated awards at different severity of
symptoms and ages are based on interpolation
of the JC Guidelines between the far left and far
right columns.
1. Introduction
2. The Judicial College Guidelines
2.1
2.2
The 12th Edition
Further Analysis
3. Common law awards
4. Can NIHL be de minimis?
5. Hearing aid claims
Appendix 1: AAHL according to ISO 7029
Appendix 2: Ready Reckoner Table of
awards by age and severity of
symptoms
Appendix 3: PSLA awards by award size
Appendix 4: PSLA awards by age
Page 5
Page 5
1. Introduction
NIHL is a dose
related and divisible
disease
1.1
NIHL is a dose related and divisible
disease. The principle of apportionment
therefore applies such that a defendant
is only liable to the extent that culpable
exposure has contributed to overall
hearing loss. Apportionment can therefore
reflect:
-other exposures to noise
(occupational / social /
recreational);
-‘non negligent’ exposures; and
-other causes of hearing loss.
1.2
Damages within NIHL claims are typically
limited. The vast majority of claims fall
below £15,000. That said the extension
of the RTA claims portal to EL disease
claims may result in artificial inflation of
claims so that they exceed the £25,000
limit of the portal and fixed costs are
avoided. Claimants may be more
reluctant to disclose evidence concerning
apportionment where the effect will be to
reduce the overall value of the claim. We
may also see more robust and expensive
claims for hearing aids.
1.3
1.4
PSLA awards are dependent upon:
-the extent of hearing loss or more
particularly the disability arising from such
loss;
-whether tinnitus is also present and if so
the severity of the same and impact upon
the claimant, and;
-the claimant’s age (the older the claimant
the less the impact of any NIHL given that
this is often subsumed by age related and
possibly other causes of hearing loss).
Page 6
Tinnitus often accompanies NIHL. It is a
ringing or buzzing sound in the ear or
head which cannot be attributed to an
external source. Up to 1% of adults have
tinnitus that affects the quality of their life.
The risk of tinnitus increases with age: 1%
of people under 45 experience tinnitus,
1
this increases to 25-30% in the over 70s.
Tinnitus is more prevalent in those who
have been exposed to noise compared
with the general population. The general
prevalence rate is 10%, however in
those exposed to noise the prevalence is
2
anything from 23.3% to 87.5%.
1
British Tinnitus Association, ‘All About Tinnitus’
<http://www.tinnitus.org.uk/all-about-tinnitus>
accessed 12 June 2013.
2
Phoon, ‘Tinnitus in Noise Exposed Workers’ (1993)
43 Occup Med (Lond) 35; HSE, ‘A Review of the
Current State of Knowledge on Tinnitus in Relation
to Noise Exposure and Hearing Loss (2010)
<http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr768.pdf>
accessed 12 June 2013.
1.5
5 (Catastrophic) – All tinnitus symptoms
will be at the severe level or worse. There
should be documented evidence of
medical consultation. Hearing loss is likely
to be present, although this is not essential.
Associated psychological problems are
likely to be found in medical records.
Grading in this category should be
extremely rare.
There are various classifications of tinnitus.
The British Association of Otolaryngologists
suggests there are five categories of tinnitus: 3
1 (Slight) – heard only in a quiet environment
and easily masked. No interference with
sleep or daily activities.
2 (Mild) – Masked easily by environmental
sounds and easily forgotten during activities.
May occasionally interfere with sleep.
1.6
This guide looks at general damages for
pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA)
in NIHL claims and claims for hearing
aids. It further explores whether de minimis
arguments can be made where any NIHL is
minimal and arguably not giving rise to any
subjective disability.
1.7
Tables of common law PSLA awards are set
out at appendices 3 and 4 to this guide
and have been updated to the end of
October 2013. The Ready Reckoner Table of
damages is based both on these updated
figures and the 12th edition of the Judicial
College Guidelines.
3 (Moderate) – May be noticeable
even in the presence of background
or environmental noise, although daily
activities may continue to be performed.
4 (Severe) – Heard almost always, rarely
masked. Leads to disturbed sleeping and
can interfere with the ability to execute
normal daily activities. Quiet activities
are adversely affected. There should be
documentary evidence of the complaint
to a medical practitioner prior to any
medico-legal claim. Hearing loss is likely to
be present, although this is not essential.
Grading in this category should be
uncommon.
3
A McCombe, ‘Guidelines for the Grading of
Tinnitus Severity: the Results of a Working Group
commissioned by the British Association of
Otolaryngologists, Head and Neck Surgeons, 1999’
(2001) 26 Clin. Otolaryngol. 388.
Page 7
2.
The Judicial
College Guidelines
The
12th Edition
2.1.1
The Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal
Injury Cases,4 published by the Judicial College (previously known as
the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) Guidelines) (the ‘Guidelines’), provide
guideline bracket figures for awards made for PSLA.
2.1.2
NIHL awards fall within Chapter 5, section (B)(d) of the Guidelines, which
states:
Chapter 5(B)(d) Partial Hearing Loss and/or Tinnitus
This category covers the bulk of deafness cases which usually result
from exposure to noise over a prolonged period. The disability is not
to be judged simply by the degree of hearing loss; there is often
a degree of tinnitus present. Age is particularly relevant because
impairment of hearing affects most people in the fullness of time and
impacts both upon causation and upon valuation.
Category
Without 10%
Uplift
With 10%
Uplift
(i) Severe tinnitus and hearing loss
£21,800 to
£33,500
£23,980 to
£36,850
(ii) Moderate tinnitus and hearing loss or
moderate to severe tinnitus or hearing loss alone.
£11,000 to
£21,800
£12,100 to
£23,980
£9,250 to
£11,000
£5,400 to
£9,250
£10,175 to
£12,100
£5,940 to
£10,175
Up to £5,150
Up to £5,665
(iii) Mild tinnitus with some hearing loss.
(iv) Slight or occasional tinnitus with slight hearing
loss
(v) Slight hearing loss without tinnitus or slight
tinnitus without hearing loss.
One part of the Jackson reforms was a 10% increase in general
damages. The 10% uplift was implemented by the decision in Simmons
v Castle [2012] EWCA Civ 1039. The Court of Appeal subsequently
revisited its decision in Simmons v Castle [2012] EWCA Civ 1288,
confirming that the 10% uplift only applies in cases where a success fee
is no longer recoverable.
The following analysis of the Guidelines will use the deafness/tinnitus
figures that take account of the 10% uplift, namely those appearing in
the second column of the above table, since they will ultimately prevail
in the future.
4
Page 8
Judicial College, Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in
Personal Injury Cases (12th edition, OUP 2013).
2.1.3
The guideline figures change with each edition. The change accounts
for inflation, new decisions and any changes in policy. In the case of
NIHL, the figures have changes in each successive edition (since the
9th edition) in accordance with inflation. Of course, in the 12th edition
the 10% uplift means the figures have significantly increased. Category
(v) was added in the 11th edition. Previously only categories (i) to (iv)
existed.
2.1.4
The addition of the fifth category in the 11th edition removed some
of the descriptive ambiguity associated with the previous editions,
although there is still no guidance given as to what is meant by ‘slight’,
‘some’, ‘moderate’ and ‘severe’ hearing loss. We assume that ‘hearing
loss’ means NIHL rather than the overall hearing loss.
Page 9
Assessing the NIHL
2.1.5
Firstly how is NIHL assessed? The conventional method is to first calculate
the overall binaural hearing loss (OBHL) at 1, 2 and 3 kHz (with weighting
for the better ear) and then deducting AAHL. Assuming there are no other
causes of hearing loss then what remains is the NIHL. A worked example is
shown below:
Example: Assessing the NIHL
The claimant is a male aged 50 with hearing thresholds over 1, 2 and 3 kHz
as follows:
1.
2.
FREQUENCY
HEARING LOSS dB
1 KHZ
2 KHZ
3 KHZ
TOTAL
AVERAGE
RIGHT
20
20
20
60
20
LEFT
10
10
10
30
10
Assess the total and average hearing loss at 1, 2
and 3 kHz and determine which is the ‘better ear’
(has the lower hearing thresholds). In our example
the left ear is the ‘better ear’.
Calculate the OBHL applying a ‘weighting’ for the
better ear as follows:
[4 x average of loss in better ear]
+ [1 x average in worse ear] / 5
= [4 x 10] + [20]/5
=60/5
OBHL=12 dB.
3.
Deduct the estimated age associated hearing loss
(AAHL). The conventional method is to use AAHL
data from ISO 7029 at the 50th percentile. For a
male aged 50 this is 10 dB (averaged over 1, 2 and
3 kHz). ISO 7029 data is shown at appendix 1.
OBHL-AAHL=NIHL
12-10=2 dB
2.1.6
Page 10
How do you determine what is ‘slight’, ‘some’, ‘moderate’ or ‘severe’ NIHL
under the Guidelines? There is a variety of medical classifications for
hearing disability according to overall hearing loss. These generally apply a
‘low fence’ threshold reflecting the natural ‘reservoir’ of hearing which can
be lost before hearing loss tips into subjective disability. So, for example,
the World Health Organisation (WHO) classification of hearing disability
(below), only recognises a slight impairment in hearing once the overall loss
exceeds 25 dB (at frequencies 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz in the ‘better ear’).
Table: WHO classification of hearing loss / disability
GRADE OF IMPAIRMENT
0 (No impairment)
1 (Slight impairment)
2 (Moderate impairment)
3 (Severe impairment)
4 (Profound impairment)
2.1.7
AVERAGE LOSS 0.5,1,2,4 kHz
25 dBHL or less (better ear)
26-40 dBHL (better ear)
41-60 dBHL (better ear)
61-80 dBHL (better ear)
81 dBHL+ (better ear)
These medical classifications of disability cannot be used as a direct interpretation of the JC
Guidelines as:
(i) they relate to the overall hearing loss rather than NIHL;
(ii) NIHL can be compensated where there is no real subjective disability and the overall loss is
below the low fence threshold;
(iii) hearing thresholds at different frequencies and different formulae are used in the
assessments.
2.1.8
However, the WHO classification can be of broad interpretive assistance if a 10 dB deduction
is made from the average losses shown in the right hand column of the table above.
Claimants in NIHL claims are typically aged between 30-70+. The AAHL between this age
range in males is 1.66-20dB with a median at c. 10 dB. If we deduct this 10 dB AAHL from the
WHO classifications then we can broadly combine it with the JC classifications as follows:
Description of loss / disability
JC Guidelines
Slight
Some
Moderate
Severe
2.1.9
Level of NIHL loss
WHO
0
1
2
3/4
Up to 15 dB
16-30 dB
31-50 dB
51 dB+
We have shown our interpretation of ‘hearing loss’ in the JC Guidelines below with added text
shown in red. This interpretation is used for our Ready Reckoner Table at paragraph 3.4.
Table: The ‘JC / BC’ Guidelines
(i) Severe tinnitus and any noise induced hearing loss
(ii) Moderate tinnitus andslight-some noise induced hearing
loss of up to 30 dB or moderate to severe tinnitus or moderate–
severe noise induced hearing loss alone exceeding 31 dB
(iii) Mild tinnitus with some noise induced hearing loss of between
16-30 dB.
(iv) Slight or occasional tinnitus with slight noise induced hearing
lossof up to 15 dB
(v) Slight noise induced hearing loss of up to 15 dB without
tinnitus or slight tinnitus without hearing loss.
Page 11
£23,980-£36,850
£12,100 to £23,980
£10,175 to £12,100
£5,940 to £10,175
Up to £5,665
Guidelines or instructions?
2.1.10
The Guidelines are only guidance, they are not instructions to be followed
fixed by law. They can be departed from if the circumstances of the case
5
6
so require. In Cameron v Vinters Defence Systems Ltd, Holland J noted, at
[7], that the starting point is the Guidelines, but that they can be departed
from with justification. The circumstances of the case must, therefore, be
regarded as the ultimate determinative factor in any award of damages.
Further Analysis
2.2.1
12th edition of the Judicial College Guidelines was published on 19th
September 2013.
2.2.2
This section will analyse changes between the different editions of the JC
Guidelines. In the following analysis attention will be focused only on the
upper bracket of category (i) and the lower bracket of category (iv), as they
represent the inflationary uplift applied to all of the figures.
2.2.3
The following table shows how the figures have changed with each edition:
Judicial College Guidelines Edition
9th (2008)
10th (2010)
11th (2012)
12th (2013)
Page 12
Category (i) Upper Bracket
£29,000
£30,000
£32,500
£36,850
Category (iv) Lower Bracket
£4,750
£4,850
£5,300
£5,940
5
This is made clear in the forward to the 11th edition and was made clear in
the forward of the first edition: (n 1) vii and ix respectively.
6
[2007] EWHC 2267 (QB) <http://www.lawtel.com/UK/FullText/
AC0115064QBD.pdf> accessed 31 May 2013.
2.2.4
The following graph shows the changes in the upper bracket of category (i)
and the lower bracket of category (iv) from each edition to the next:
Upper Bracket
Judicial College Guidelines Edition
Lower Bracket
£40,000
£35,000
£30,000
£25,000
£20,000
£15,000
£10,000
£5,000
£0
9th (2008)
2.2.5
10th (2010)
12th(2013)
The table below shows the percentage change in the upper bracket of
category (i) and the lower bracket of category (iv) for each successive
edition of the Guidelines, and the overall percentage change. It shows that
the upper bracket has risen at a slightly faster rate than the lower bracket on
average. The sharper increase between the 11th and 12th edition reflects
the 10% increase in general damages:
Judicial College Guidelines Edition
9th (2008)
10th (2010)
11th (2012)
Category (i) Upper Bracket
% Change
£29,000
3.45%
8.33%
Category (iv) Lower Bracket
% Change
£4,750
2.11%
9.28%
12th (2013)
13.38%
12.08%
Average % change by edition
8.37%
7.82%
2.2.6
Page 13
11th(2012)
Since the 9th edition in 2008 the upper bracket has increased by 27.07%.
Meanwhile, the lower bracket has increased by 25.05%.
2.2.7
The 12th edition of the Guidelines was published on 19 September 2013.
There have been no policy changes that needed to be reflected in the
Guidelines. Accordingly they represent inflationary uplift alone. In addition,
there is a column with the figures showing the 10% uplift.
Most cases will, for the time being, still be ones where a success fee can be
recovered (success fees can be recovered where the relevant conditional
fee arrangement (CFA) with success fee has been entered prior to 1 April
2013: see section 44(6) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of
Offenders Act 2012 and CPR 48). In those cases Simmons confirms that
the 10% uplift does not apply. Therefore there is a need to show estimated
awards by reference to the JC Guidelines without the 10% uplift. However,
because success fees will not be recoverable in future claims, meaning
that the 10% uplift will apply, there is also a need to show estimated awards
by reference to the JC Guidelines with the 10% uplift.
Accordingly, in Tariff Tables 1 we present two tables: the first shows estimated
awards based on the JC Guidelines without the 10% uplift. The estimated
awards are compared with actual awards (updated for inflation). The
second table shows estimated awards based on the JC Guidelines with
the 10% uplift. The estimated awards are compared with the same actual
awards (updated for inflation) but these have also been artificially inflated
by 10% so that accurate comparisons can be made.
Page 14
3.Common Law Awards
3.1
3.2
3.3
Common law awards for NIHL show no
real consistency. Historic awards should be
approached with caution. It is arguable that
many such awards failed to properly take
into account the disabling effects of tinnitus.
Conversely many historic awards assessed
the NIHL over frequencies 1, 2 and 4 kHz
rather than 1, 2 and 3 kHz. This method
typically shows higher NIHL. In some cases
the method of assessment of the NIHL is
unclear and in some it is not clear whether
it is the OBHL rather than the NIHL which is
being referred to.
We show at appendices 3 and 4 PSLA
awards sorted by size of awards and age
of claimants. Our knowledge centre has an
NIHL PSLA app which allows you to assess
awards by reference to our Ready Reckoner
Table and also to search for awards
according to age, level of NIHL and severity
of tinnitus. Please go to:
http://www.bc-legal.co.uk/index.php/
knowledge-centre.html
Page 15
3.4
The Ready Reckoner Table appears on
the following pages. It is important to have
regard to the accompanying explanatory
notes, which explain the assumptions that
were made when compiling the table, and
how figures were arrived at where there
was no direct common law authority on an
appropriate award.
Page 16
BC
BC LEGAL
B R I N G I N G C L AR I T Y
Page 16
READY RECKONER TABLE:
AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY
OF SYMPTOMS
READY RECKONER TABLE: AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS (WITHOUT 10% UPLIFT) AGE NIHL (dB) TINNITUS Up to 30 Slight Page 17 41‐45 46‐50 51‐55 56‐60 61‐65 66‐70 71+ £4,505 £4,345 £6,020.55 £4,185 £4,030 £4,359.02 £3,870 £3,710 £7,535
£6,188.97 £11,685.22 £7,110 £6,680 £6,255 £5,830 £5,400 £9,230 £2,142.01 £10,454.02 £8,930 £9,726.94 £8,635 £8,340 None £5,150 £4,980 £4,825 £6,865.20 Slight/ £9,250 £8,820 £8,390 £7,965 £9,820 £9,101.69 £9,525
£5,362.83 £6,013.83 £7,108.73 £8,538.98 Mild £11,000 £10,705 £10,410 £7,938.03 £10,115 £6,404.24 £8,227.63 £8,817.18 Moderate £20,890 £11,066.30 £19,690 £18,490 £17,290 £16,090
£12,671.03 £12,860.79 £14,890 £25,678.52 £13,690
£10,981.56 £15,380.24 £12,490 £11,290 £14,360.50 £10,090 Severe £33,500 £32,200 £30,900 £29,600 £28,300 £27,000 £25,700 £24,400 £23,100 £21,800 £6,480 £6,551.37 £6,325 £5,950.39 £9,055.23 £6,165
£6,235.15 £7,370.30 £10,606.95 £6,005 £5,845 £2,470.46 £8,414.31 £5,685 £5,530 £9,180 £8,855
£6,170.78 £7,094.60 £7,713.47 £8,530 £8,200 £6,815.06 £7,875 £7,545 £7,220 £9,835 £6,280.06 £8,374.63 £9,640
£7,665.10 £7,942.79 £9,644.82 £10,998.63 £12,881.61 £9,445 £9,250 £5,183.13 £14,600 £8,380.92 £10,246.78 £13,400 £8,234.86 £12,200 £10,285.06 £11,000 £26,310 £19,733.38 £30,863.26 £25,110 £23,910 £22,710 Slight/ 36‐40 £4,665
£6,645.78 £8,366.24 None Some 31‐35 £6,970 £10,160 £6,800 £9,835 Mild £11,000 £6,038.70 £10,815 £8,363.21 Moderate £21,800 £20,600 Severe £33,500 £32,310 £32,347.81 £6,640 £8,624.37 £9,510 £10,425 £10,230 £9,714.45 £9,819.83 £19,400 £18,200 £17,000
£10,873.40 £12,808.47 £13,718.18 £18,594.23 £31,110 £29,910 £28,710 £10,620 £10,030
£1,743.86 £6,240.77 £7,942.79 £10,029.20 £10,872.18 £15,800
£3,150.06 £13,381.10 £16,455.40 £17,402.17 £27,510 £20,060.09 £26,357.94 Moderate Severe None £17,255 £16,455 £15,660 £14,865 £14,070 £13,275
£12,647.70 £19,350.36 £12,480
£7,368.03 £15,831.05 £11,680
£5,176.03 £5,501.82 £10,885 7,906.47 £10,090 Slight/ £18,770 £17,845 £16,915 £15,980 £15,050 £14,120 £13,185 £12,255 £11,325 £10,390 £13,885 £12,825 £6,129.54 £8,553.09 £11,760 £10,695 £14,600 £13,400 £12,200 £11,000 £26,920 £25,820 £24,720 £23,620 £17,760
£16,847.13 £17,255 £19,700 £19,075 £21,640 £20,890 £23,580 £22,710 £25,523 £14,535.49 £24,530 £14,950
£8,623.60 £9,007.79 £11,702.17 £15,800
£18,285 Mild £20,280 £19,205 £12,378.71 £18,140 £17,080 £16,015 Moderate £21,800 £16,065.05 £20,600 £19,400 £18,200
£14,802.89 £17,000 Severe £33,500 £32,420 £31,320 £30,220 £29,120 £19,275 £18,770 £18,265
£3,923.68 £21,580 £20,955 £20,330 None £21,800 £21,290 £20,785 £20,280 £19,780
£14,997.36 Slight/ £24,730 £24,090 £23,465 £22,835 £22,210 £28,020 Mild £27,655 £26,890 £26,140 £25,390 £24,640 £23,890 £23,140 Moderate £30,580 £29,690 £28,820 £27,945 £27,075 £26,200 £25,330 Severe £33,500 £32,490 £31,495 £30,500 £21,470.51 £29,505 £28,510 £27,515 £22,390
£3,633.03 £21,278.45 £24,455
£23,065.99 £26,520 £52,958.92 Explanatory Notes: 1. The highest figure in red bold (bottom left) is the upper bracket of the 12th edition of the JC Guidelines without the 10% uplift. The lowest award (top right corner) represents HHJ Inglis’ view in the Nottingham and Derbyshire Deafness Litigation [2007] EWHC B1 (QB) [127] that the lowest award for NIHL was likely to be in the region of £3,710 (updated to October 2013 without the 10% uplift). 2. It is assumed that awards at the bottom end of the JC bracket will involve cases where (i) the claimant was elderly and likely to have experienced some hearing loss anyway; and (ii) there was limited hearing loss and no tinnitus. The lower bracket figure of £3,710 is therefore placed in the top right hand corner of the table (claimants aged 70+ / limited hearing loss and no tinnitus). 3. Conversely, the upper bracket figure of £33,500 occupies the bottom left hand side of the table (claimants aged up to 40 with severe hearing loss and severe tinnitus). 4. Estimated awards at different severity of symptoms and ages are based on interpolation of the JC Guidelines between the far left and far right columns. 5. All estimated figures are shown in bold. 6. We have compared the estimated figures with actual awards (where these exist)based again on age / severity of symptoms. 7. Cases not identifying the severity of tinnitus are omitted from this table but appear in the tables of common law awards. Page 18 8.
9.
10.
11.
Italicised awards represent indicated awards that would have been made had liability been established. Where awards significantly cover two brackets they appear in both brackets. Old authorities tended to award less than more current awards. They are therefore often anomalously low. Some actual awards appear entirely anomalous, without explanation. There is sometimes little consistency between awards. Page 19 READY RECKONER TABLE: AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS (WITH 10% UPLIFT) AGE NIHL (dB) TINNITUS Up to 30 Slight (up to 15 dB) Page 20 36‐40 41‐45 46‐50 51‐55 56‐60 61‐65 66‐70 71+ £4,955 £4,780 £6,622.61 £4,605 £4,430 £4,794.92 £4,255 £4,080 £8,290
£6,807.87 £12,853.74 £7,820 £7,350 £6,880 £6,410 £5,940 £10,800 £10,011.86 £10,475
£5,899.11 £6,615.21 £7,819.60 £9,392.88 £10,150 £2,356.21 £11,499.42 £9,825 £10,699.63 £9,500 £9,175 None £5,665 £5,480 £5,305 £7,551.72 £5,130
£7,310.36 £9,202.86 Slight/ occasional £10,175 £9,700 £9,230 £8,731.83 £8,760 Mild £12,100 £11,775 £11,125 £7,044.66 £9,050.39 £9,698.90 £11,450 Moderate £22,980 £12,172.93 £21,660 £20,340 £19,020 £17,700
£13,938.13 £14,146.87 £16,380 £28,246.37 £15,060
£12,079.72 £16,918.26 £13,740 £12,420 £15,796.55 £11,100 Severe £36,850 £35,420 £33,990 £32,560 £31,130 £29,700 £28,270 £26,840 £25,410 £23,980 £7,130 £7,206.51 £6,955 £6,545.43 £9,960.75 £6,780
£6,858.67 £8,107.33 £11,667.65 £6,605 £6,430 £2,717.51 £9,255.74 £6,255 £6,080 £10,100 £9,740
£6,787.86 £7,804.06 £8,484.82 £9,380 £9,020 £7,496.57 £8,660 £8,300 £7,940 £11,465 £11,250 £10,685.90 £10,801.81 £11,035 £1,918.25 £6,864.85 £8,737.07 £11,032.12 £11,959.40 £10,820 £6,908.07 £9,212.09 £10,605
£8,431.61 £8,737.07 £10,609.30 £12,098.49 £14,169.77 £10,390 £10,175 £5,701.44 £20,020 £18,700
£11,960.74 £14,089.32 £15,090.00 £20,453.65 £17,380
£3,465.07 £14,719.21 £18,100.94 £19,142.39 £16,060 £9,219.01 £11,271.46 £14,740 £9,058.35 £13,420 £11,313.57 £12,100 None Some (16 to 30 dB) 31‐35 Slight/ occasional Mild Moderate £7,665 £11,175 £12,100 £6,642.57 £23,980 £7,480 £10,820 £11,895 £9,199.53 £22,660 £7,305 £9,486.81 £10,460 £11,680 £21,340 Moderate (31 to 45 dB) Severe (46+ dB) £30,260
£22,066.10 £28,993.73 £14,600
£13,912.47 £21,285.40 £28,940
£21,706.72 £33,949.59 £13,725
£8,104.83 £17,414.16 £27,620 £26,300.00 £24,980 £12,850
£5,693.63 £6,052.00 £11,975 £8,697.12 £11,100 £15,530 £14,505 £13,480 £12,455 £11,430 £15,275 £14,105 £6,742.49 £9,408.40 £12,935 £11,765 £16,060 £14,740 £13,420 £12,100 £30,820 £29,610 £28,400 £27,190 £25,980 £21,755
£16,497.10 £21,200 £20,645 £20,090
£4,316.05 £19,535
£18,531.84 £18,980 £25,120 £24,430 £23,740 £23,050 £22,360 £21,670 £20,980 £28,755 £27,930 £27,105 £26,280 £25,455 £23,805 £22,980 £32,660 £31,700 £30,740 £29,780 £28,820 £27,860 £25,940 £24,980 £35,740 £34,645 £33,550 £23,617.56 £32,455 £31,360 £30,265 £28,075 £26,980 Severe £36,850 £35,540 £35,582.59 £34,220 £32,900 £31,580 None £18,980 £18,100 £17,225 £16,350 £15,475 Slight/
occasional £20,645 £19,630 £18,605 £17,580 £16,555 Mild £22,310 £21,125 £13,616.58 £19,955 £18,785 £17,615 Moderate £23,980 £17,671.56 £22,660 £21,340 £20,020
£16,283.18 £18,700 Severe £36,850 £35,660 £34,450 £33,240 £32,030 None £23,980 £23,420 £22,865 £22,310 Slight/
occasional £27,200 £26,500 £25,810 Mild £30,420 £29,580 Moderate £33,640 Severe £36,850 £16,445
£9,485.96 £9,908.57 £12,872.39 £17,380
£20,113.50 £24,630
£3,996.33 £23,406.30 £26,900
£25,372.59 £29,170 £58,254.81 Explanatory Notes: 1. The highest figure in red bold (bottom left) is the upper bracket of the 12th edition of the JC Guidelines with the 10% uplift. The lowest award (top right corner) represents HHJ Inglis’ view in the Nottingham and Derbyshire Deafness Litigation [2007] EWHC B1 (QB) [127] that the lowest award for NIHL was likely to be in the region of £4,080 (updated to October 2013 with a 10% uplift). 2. It is assumed that awards at the bottom end of the JC bracket will involve cases where (i) the claimant was elderly and likely to have experienced some hearing loss anyway; and (ii) there was limited hearing loss and no tinnitus. The lower bracket figure of £4,080 is therefore placed in the top right hand corner of the table (claimants aged 70+ / limited hearing loss and no tinnitus). 3. Conversely, the upper bracket figure of £36,850 occupies the bottom left hand side of the table (claimants aged up to 40 with severe hearing loss and severe tinnitus). 4. Estimated awards at different severity of symptoms and ages are based on interpolation of the JC Guidelines between the far left and far right columns. Page 21 5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
All estimated figures are shown in bold. We have compared the estimated figures with actual awards (where these exist) (artificially inflated by 10%)based again on age / severity of symptoms. Cases not identifying the severity of tinnitus are omitted from this table but appear in the tables of common law awards. Italicised awards represent indicated awards that would have been made had liability been established. Where awards significantly cover two brackets they appear in both brackets. Old authorities tended to award less than more current awards. They are therefore often anomalously low. Some actual awards appear entirely anomalous, without explanation. There is sometimes little consistency between awards. Page 22 4. Can NIHL
be de minimis?
De minimis principles
4.1
Negligence is actionable only on proof
of damage. Whilst such damage need
not be substantial it must be more than
minimal. If negligence has produced a
physiological change that is neither visible,
nor symptomatic, and in which no way
impairs the bodily function, it should not
attract legal liability: Cartledge v Jopling. 7
4.2
It is often a difficult question to determine
when an injury passes from being de
minimis to one which is sufficiently
significant to found a cause of action.
However, in light of anecdotal reports of
increasing numbers of minimal hearing
loss claims, it is opportune to consider
whether a de minimis defence can be
advanced in such cases.
De minimis judgments
4.5
So can a de minimis defence succeed
in a NIHL claim with minimal losses?
The judgment of HHJ Inglis in the
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Deafness
Litigation would suggest not. 9 There, an
argument on de minimis was rejected. It
was held, at [125], that nothing prevents
compensation for hearing loss being
appropriate where the hearing impairment
will lead to some level of disability, even
if it is minor. The real question is whether
NIHL can be confidently diagnosed on
the balance of probabilities. Moreover,
it was held that impairment at 4kHz (or
exceptionally 6kHz) is not irrelevant simply
because of the lack of a practical effect
on the claimant.
Human hearing and
speech
4.3
The human range of hearing is between
c. 20 Hz-20 kHz in children and young
adults but with the high range frequencies
at 8 kHz and above fading with age. The
human voice produces sound within a
frequency range of about 60 Hz-7 kHz but
most human speech falls within a range of
250 Hz-3 kHz.
4.4
However, sound at 4 kHz can also play
a part in speech recognition, although
it is less important. Frequencies of 6 kHz
and 8kHz may have little role in speech
8
recognition.
7
8
9
Page 23
[1963] AC 758, 779 (Lord Pearce)
Expert Hearing Group, ‘Hearing Disability
Assessment’ (Department of Health and Children,
Ireland, 1998) <http://www.dohc.ie/publications/
pdf/hearing.pdf?direct=1> accessed 18 June
2013.
This later became Baker v Quantum Clothing
Group Ltd [2011] UKSC 17 <http://www.bailii.
org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/
UKSC/2011/17.html&query=baker+and+qua
ntum&method=boolean> accessed 30 May
2013. HHJ Inglis’ judgement ([2007] EWHC B1
(QB)) is available at <http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/
markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/b1.h
tml&query=Nottinghamshire+and+Derbyshire+
and+Deafness+and+Litigation&method=boole
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
Page 24
However, the de minimis argument
was only a very small part in what was
a complex and lengthy trial. Moreover,
the judgment must be placed into the
context of arising before the House of
Lords’ extensive analysis of the principle
of de minimis in the Pleural Plaques Test
Litigation,10 where a majority found that
asymptomatic pleural plaques which were
accompanied by the usual risks for future
asbestos related disease and feelings of
worry did not constitute ‘personal injury’
and so no cause of action could be
pursued.
In Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Limited,11Lord
Phillips commented, at [108], that it would
be impossible to define quantitatively what
de minimis is. Arguably it is not the injury
but the resulting disability – in the past,
present or future – which is paramount in
determining the likely success of any de
minimis defence. In other words, is the
12
claimant ‘appreciably worse off?’
The matter was recently considered again
specifically in relation to NIHL in the first
instance decision of Hughes v Rhondda
Cynon Taff County Borough Council.13 It was
contended that any NIHL which may have
existed was trivial and therefore de minimis.
The court considered 5 audiograms, none
of which showed any hearing disability
within the 1-3 kHz frequency range and
applying the ‘Black Book’ method for
assessment of disability.14 In oral evidence
the claimant’s medical expert advanced
the argument that losses at 4 kHz gave rise
to a disability. It was common ground that
there were a few decibels of loss at 4 kHz
caused by noise but the issue was whether
it constituted a disability?
The judge found that any NIHL at 4 kHz
did not give rise to any disability. The
claimant’s difficulties in hearing speech
arose from age related and idiopathic
losses. The claimant’s hearing was still in
within a range of normal hearing for a
man of his age and as such there was no
‘disability’ as such. The claimant was not
‘appreciably worse off’ and the change in
hearing fell within the de minimis principle
so as not to be actionable.
10
Johnston v NEI International Combustion [2007]
UKHL 39 <http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.
cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/39.html&que
ry=johnston+and+nei&method=boolean>
accessed 30 May 2013.
11
[2011] UKSC 10 <http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/
markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/10.ht
ml&query=sienkiewicz&method=boolean>
accessed 30 May 2013.
12
Pleural Plaques Test Litigation, n 13, [19] (Lord
Hoffmann).
13
(Cardiff County Court, 3 August 2012).
14
King, Coles, Lutman & Robinson, Assessment of
Hearing Disability: Guidelines for Medicolegal
Success in running a de
minimis defence
4.10
Hughes demonstrates that de minimis
defences can succeed in NIHL claims. The
15
appropriate selection criteria for running a
successful de minimis defence are:
are initially additive the effect of the noise
component progressively diminishes
over time. By the age of 80 it is arguable
that it makes virtually no difference to
an individual’s hearing ability what noise
exposure has arisen (although be aware of
the onset of any disability being ‘brought
forward’ as a result of the NIHL).
4.11
The main speech frequencies between
1-3 kHz unaffected by any NIHL;
NIHL of only a few decibels at 4 kHz
or 6 kHz. It is preferable that the NIHL is
only at 6 kHz, firstly because there are
studies to support the role of hearing at
4 kHz for speech recognition (which do
not appear to have been considered
in Hughes) and, secondly, because it is
possible to argue that any loss at 6 kHz
is transient or spurious or, if the loss is
permanent, does not arise as a result of
NIHL ;
NIHL (if it does exist) of just a few
decibels at 4kHz or 6kHz only in the
‘better ear’ with significantly poorer
thresholds in the ‘worse ear’ which
cannot be caused by noise;
An elderly claimant with already
significant non noise related losses such
that it can be argued that any disability
from NIHL is completely subsumed by
other losses / disability. Whilst the effects
of NIHL and age related losses
Page 25
15
Not all of these selection criteria need
to be present for a de minimis defence,
but the more that are present the better
the prospects of success. It is important
to develop proper medical evidence
supported by the authorities. There are
some studies which suggest that hearing
at 4 kHz and possibly 6 kHz have a role in
17
speech recognition. In addition, hearing
aid manufacturers are beginning to
introduce ‘extended bandwidth’ hearing
aids, which are said to amplify sounds
between 6-8 kHz (traditionally insufficient
amplification at these frequencies
coupled with ‘feedback’ prevented
this). However, currently, there are no
known authorities which show significant
improvements in speech recognition
with the used of extended bandwidth
amplification.
See para 4.5.
5. HEARING AID CLAIMS?
When does a hearing loss give rise to disability
5.1
There is a ‘reservoir’ of hearing which can be lost before hearing loss
represents itself as a subjective disability. Onset of disability is typically
slow and insidious and often arises when NIHL is later accompanied by
age related losses.
5.2
The point at which loss becomes disability is known as the ‘low fence
16
threshold’. Action on Hearing Loss categorise hearing loss and
17
disability as follows :
Category
Quietest sounds heard
Disability
Mild
25-39 dB
Some difficulty following speech, mainly in noisy
situations.
Moderate
40-69 dB
Difficulty following speech without hearing aids.
Severe
70-94 dB
Rely on lip reading even with hearing aids.
Profound
95 dB+
See also the WHO classification at 2.1.7 which again applies a 25 dB
low fence (averaged over 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz).
Page 26
5.3
According to Action on Hearing Loss there are more than 10 million
adults in the UK with some form of hearing loss (1 in 6 of the population)
– 6.4 million aged 65+ and 3.7 million between the ages of 16-64. This
number is predicted to grow to over 14 million by around 2030 as the
population ages.18Age related loss is the single biggest cause of hearing
loss-about 70% of adults over the age of 70 and 40% of those aged
19
over 50 are affected.
5.4
Out of the 10 million adults with hearing loss it is estimated that 6 million
would derive some benefit from hearing aids – yet only 2 million have
aids and only 1.4 million use them regularly. In other words only about
one quarter of people who could derive benefit from aids use them
regularly. Generally it takes 10 years for people to address hearing loss
and seek medical advice.20
16
Formerly the RNID
17
Action on Hearing Loss, ‘Facts and Figures on Hearing Loss and Tinnitus’ (July 2011) <http://www.
actiononhearingloss.org.uk/search.aspx?gcs=facts%2band%2bfigures> accessed 12 June 2013.
18
Action on Hearing Loss, ‘Statistics’ <http://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/your-hearing/aboutdeafness-and-hearing-loss/statistics.aspx> accessed 12 June 2013.
191
Action on Hearing Loss, ‘Hearing Matters’ 22 <http://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/supportingyou/policy-research-and-influencing/research/hearing-matters.aspx> accessed 12 June 2013.
20
ONS, ‘Living in Britain: General Household Survey’ (2002) <http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ghs/
general-household-survey/2002-edition/index.html> accessed 12 June 2013.
Clinical need for aids
5.5
There are currently no recognised clinical guidelines in the UK for
managing hearing loss using hearing aids. Arguably hearing aids will
be of no clinical benefit to claimants whose loss is below the low fence
threshold. The need for aiding increases with increasing loss above
the low fence. A 1993 paper by Professors Haggard and Gatehouse 21
suggests that in most cases benefit from aiding will only be derived
where the hearing loss in the ‘better ear’is at least 35 dB (averaged
over 0.5,1, 2 and 4 kHz). This has been supported more recently by a
22
2008 Italian study which suggested that 35 dB (over 0.5,1,2,3 and 4
kHz) can be considered the level at which aids should be suggested to
23
people with hearing loss. Other studies suggest a figure of 40 dB .
5.6
Consider also the frequencies at which the hearing loss occurs. If only
at 6 kHz then there is little evidence to support that aiding will improve
speech intelligibility.
Types of hearing aid
24
Analogue or digital
5.7
Page 27
Analogue and digital hearing aids look very similar, but they process
sound differently. Analogue aids amplify electronic signals, while digital
aids use a tiny computer to process sound. This means it is possible
to customise the aid to suit hearing loss very precisely. Many digital
aids can be programmed with different settings for different sound
environments, for example a quiet living room or a crowded restaurant.
Some even switch settings automatically to suit the environment. Digital
hearing aids are designed to reduce background noise, which makes
listening in noisy places more comfortable. They are also less likely to
‘whistle’, or give feedback. Digital hearing aids are now available as
standard on the NHS.
21
Candidature for hearing aids: justification for the concept and a two part audiometric criterion,
British Journal of Audiology, 1993;27:303-18, Haggard MP and Gatehouse S.
22
Noise-induced hearing loss and hearing aids requirement, Acta Otorhinolarngologica Italica 2008;
28: 200-205, C. Giordano et al.
23
Preconceptions and expectations of older adults about getting hearing aids. J Multidiscip Healthc.
2011;4:1-8, Jorunn Solheim.
24
Action on Hearing Loss, ‘Types of Hearing Aids’ <http://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/yourhearing/need-hearing-aids/types-of-hearing-aids.aspx> accessed 12 June 2013.
Behind the ear (BTE) hearing aids
5.8
BTE aids have an earmould that fits snugly inside the ear, with the rest
of the aid sitting behind the ear. Some models have twin microphones,
which allow switching between all-round sound and a more directional
setting that helps focus on particular sounds.
5.9
BTE hearing aids with ‘open ear fitting’ have a small, soft earpiece at
the tip of the tubing instead of an earmould. This type of fitting can be
less noticeable than an earmould but is only suitable if the hearing loss
is mild or moderate. It can give a very natural sound.
Receiver in the ear (RITE) hearing aids
5.10
5.11
Receiver in-the-ear (RITE) (or loudspeaker in-the-ear) aids are often
smaller than BTE aids because some part of the device sits inside the
ear. Like open ear BTEs, they can be easier to put in than an earmould.
There are different RITE hearing aids for different levels of hearing loss. If
the hearing loss is severe, an aid with the receiver in an earmould may
be required.
In the ear (ITE) hearing aids
5.12
These fit entirely into the ear. The working parts are either in a small
compartment clipped to the earmould or inside the moulded part
itself. ITE aids tend to need repairing more often than BTE aids.
Completely in the canal (CIC) hearing aids
5.13
These fit entirely into the ear. The working parts are either in a small
compartment clipped to the earmould or inside the moulded part
itself. ITE aids tend to need repairing more often than BTE aids.
Body worn hearing aids
5.14
Page 28
These have a small box that clips to your clothing and connected by a
lead to the earphone. The controls are less fiddly than those on smaller
hearing aids and they can provide significant amplification.
5.15
The following table details the respective advantages and
disadvantages of various hearing aids.
Type of Hearing Aid
Advantage
BTE
•
•
•
•
Disadvantages
Suitable for mild-profound •
hearing losses.
More amplification than
ITE and ITC aids. There
fore better for profound
loss.
Can be less visible than
ITE aid if ‘open fit’. Open
fit aids also suit those who
suffer with a build-up
of wax and are less
occlusive (sound does
not sound ‘plugged up’).
Longest battery life.
•
RITE
•
•
Smaller than BTE.
The absence of an ear
mould makes them
easier to fit.
ITE
•
Suitable for mild to severe •
hearing loss.
Easy to insert and re
•
move.
•
•
•
•
CIC
•
•
Even smaller than ITE aids. •
Least visible.
•
•
Body worn
•
•
Page 29
Provide significant amplifi
cation.
Easy to use.
•
More visible, albeit
often covered with
average length hair.
Can still require an
earmould in cases of
severe loss.
Unsuitable for profound
loss.
Less reliable than BTE.
Shorter battery life.
More visible than ITC
aids and some BTE aids.
Prone to damage by
earwax.
Not suitable for severe
loss.
Not suitable for those
suffering frequent ear
infections.
Prone to damage by
earwax
More visible.
Issues in claims for hearing aids
Necessity and acceleration
5.16
5.17
5.18
5.19
One issue in hearing aid claims is whether they are actually necessary
clinically. In Coffin v Ford Motor Company hearing aids were only
awarded on the basis that they were ‘reasonably required’. 25
Whether hearing aids are reasonably required will turn largely on the
medical evidence in each case. But it is arguable, for example, that
the costs of hearing aids should not be recoverable where there will
be no clinical benefit. Arguably for losses below around 35 dB (and
certainly below the low fence threshold of 25 dB) or where significant
losses are at 6 kHz then aids will provide no clinical benefit.
The other issue that has to be considered is by how long the need for
hearing aids has been accelerated by the exposure to noise. Given
the prevalence of hearing problems in the older population, it is likely
that they will often be required in any event. Recovery can only be
made for the period of need which would not have existed but for
the exposure to noise. This was made clear at [162] of Coffin. It was
held that a ‘broad’ approach is necessary ([166]-[170]) owing to the
impossibility of determining when natural hearing loss will occur. In
the circumstances of Coffin it was held that the need had not been
accelerated by more than 10 years. Accordingly the costs of two sets
of aids were awarded (having regard to the accepted 5 year life of
hearing aids).
The effects of NIHL and AAHL are additive, though less than the sum
of the 2 causes. If hair cells are damaged by one cause they cannot
be re-damaged by the other. Arguably the effect of NIHL progressively
diminishes with time so that by the age of 80 it makes virtually no
difference to an individual’s hearing what noise exposure there has
been .26
One ear or both ears?
5.20
Page 30
Leading on from the clinical need for hearing aids, there will also often
be questions of the necessity for one or two hearing aids. If the hearing
loss in one ear is insubstantial there may be no reasonable need for a
hearing aid. This was the case in Coffin. There it was held that one of
the claimants had not made out a reasonable need for hearing aids
in both ears (at [92]). Although many medical practitioners believe
that the use of 2 hearing aids is the ideal fitting where there is bilateral
symmetrical hearing loss, research has consistently shown that a
27
substantial proportion of people prefer to use only 1 hearing aid.
25
Unreported (Southampton County Court, 18th March 2008) [91] <http://www.lawtel.com/UK/FullText/
AC0117517CC(Southampton).pdf> accessed 12 June 2013.
26
Impairment and disability in noise induced hearing loss. Advances in Audiology, vol.5, Karger,
Basel, 71-81. Robinson DW (1988); Hearing Disability Assessment, Report of the Expert Hearing
Group, Irish Department of Health and Children, 1998 (page 61).
27
Preference for one or two hearing aids among adult patients, Ear Hear.2011 Mar-Apr; 32(2):181197, Robyn Cox et al.
Will the cost be incurred and what is reasonable?
Page 31
5.21
Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 provides
that private costs can be recovered despite the availability of NHS
treatment. However, there is no restriction on arguing that a claimant
would probably not incur private expenses (Lim Poh Choo v Camden
28
and Islington AHAand Sowden v Lodge).
5.22
In the same way that arguments can be made to the effect that a
claimant should not be able to recover private expenses because
they would use NHS provision, arguments can also be made that
expenses should not be recoverable because the claimant would not
seek treatment at all. Many claimants suffer with hearing difficulties for
many years prior to making a claim but fail to seek treatment. Would
they all of a sudden incur the cost of private hearing aids? In A v Powys
Local Health Board it was confirmed (following Sowden v Lodge) that a
claimant is entitled to damages to meet their reasonable requirements
29
and reasonable needs arising from their injuries. If a claimant has
not sought treatment, and had no intention of doing so prior to their
claim, do they reasonably then require hearing aids? Would they be
reasonably incurring this cost?
5.23
How much is recoverable by way of costs? Can a claimant recover
costs that would be incurred by using a private dispenser of hearing
aids or are costs limited to the ‘high-street’ price on the open market?
Coffin provides the answer. At [152] it was held that the list price for
reasonably suitable hearing aids is not recoverable when they are
available more cheaply on the open market.
28
Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington AHA [1980] AC 174; Sowden v Lodge [2005] 1 WLR 2129
29
[2007] EWHC 2996 (QB).
Worked examples of hearing aid claims
Assuming there is a valid hearing loss claim how is this calculated?
We look at 2 worked examples below. 30
Example 1:
The claimant is a 65 year old male with normal life expectancy who
requires bilateral aids which cost £750 a pair. The aids will need
replacement every 5 years. There are annual battery, servicing and
maintenance costs which total £100.
1.
Assess the claimant’s life expectancy
Normal life expectancy for a 65 year old male is c. 21 years-to age 86
[see Ogden A3 Life tables or 0% discount column Table 1].
2.
Assess whether there is an earlier ‘cut off’ for the
aids caused by the NIHL
Normal life expectancy for a 65 year old male is c. 21 years-to age 86
[see Ogden A3 Life tables or 0% discount column Table 1].
3.
What is the period over which the aids will be required (i.e.
whichever is less of the above periods 1 or 2)?
The period over which the aids will be required is 21 years-between
ages 65-86.
4.
How often will the aids need replacing during the above
period
Aids will be required initially and then at every 5 years. The regime for
initial supply and replacement is as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
5.
What are the multiplicands?
•
•
30
Page 32
Initial aid-age 65
1st replacement-age 70
2nd replacement-age 75
3rd replacement-age 80
4th replacement-age 85
Aids £750
Battery / servicing / maintenance £100
For a ready reckoner of damages use Table 28-fixed term multipliers. Please note there is no
mortality discount with this Table but it has the benefit of simplicity of use.
6.
What are the mutlipliers?
For loss every 5 years use Ogden Table A5 (Payment every 5
years for 21 years @2.5% discount rate)-2.97. Table A5 does
not reflect mortality risk and so needs to be discounted. To
do this compare 21 year multipliers for fixed terms-Table
28-with Table 1 column 0% which reflects mortality risk.
The respective multipliers are 16.39 (Table 28) and 15.62
(Table 1-age 65 years and 6 months). The discount factor
is 15.62/ 16.39=0.95. The discounted A5 multiplier is 2.97 x
0.95=2.82.
For annual loss over 21 years use Ogden Table 1 column 0%
as above-15.62.
7.
Total claim
Initial purchase cost of aids
£750
Replacement costs every 5 years
£750 x 2.82=£2,115
Future annual costs (battery etc.)
£100 x 15.62=£1562
Total
£4,427
For a ready reckoner of damages use Table 28-fixed term multipliers. Please note there is no mortality
discount with this Table but it has the benefit of simplicity of use.
Page 33
Example 2:
The claimant is a 65 year old male with normal life expectancy who
requires bilateral aids which cost £750 a pair. The aids will need
replacement every 5 years. There are annual battery, servicing and
maintenance costs which total £100. The medical evidence is that
1.
Assess the claimant’s life expectancy
As example 1-to age 86
2.
Assess whether there is an earlier ‘cut off’ for the aids caused by
the NIHL
The aids would be required in any event by age 78
3.
What is the period over which the aids will be required (whichever
is less of the above periods 1 or 2)
13 years
4.
How often will the aids need replacing during the above period
Aids will be required initially and then at every 5 years. The regime for
initial supply and replacement is as follows:
•
•
•
5.
Initial aid-age 65
1st replacement-age 70
2nd replacement-age 75
What are the multiplicands?
•
•
6.
Aids £750
Battery / servicing / maintenance £100
What are the mutlipliers?
For loss every 5 years use Ogden Table A5 (Payment
every
5 years for 13 years @2.5% discount rate)-1.67. Table A5 does
not reflect mortality risk and so needs to be discounted. To do this
compare 13 year multipliers for fixed terms-Table 28-with Table 1
column 0% which reflects mortality risk. The respective multipliers are
11.12 (Table 28) and 10.62 (Table 1-age 75 years and 4 months).
The discount factor is 10.62/11.12=0.96. The discounted A5
multiplier is 1.67 x 0.96=1.60
For annual loss over 13 years use Ogden Table 1 column 0% as
above=10.62
7.
Total claim
Initial purchase cost of aids
Replacement costs every 5 years
Future annual costs (battery etc.)
Total
Page 34
£750
£750 x 1.60=£1200
£100 x 10.62=£1062
£3,012
BC
BC LEGAL
B R I N G I N G C L AR I T Y
Appendices
Page
Page 35
35
BC
BC LEGAL
B R I N G I N G C L AR I T Y
Appendix 1:
AAHL according to ISO 7029
Page
Page 36
36
APPENDIX 1: AAHL ACCORDING TO ISO 7029 (50th PERCENTILE) Page 37
AGE MALE FEMALE 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 5 5 5 5 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 8.33 8.33 8.33 10 10 10 10 11.66 11.66 11.66 13.33 13.33 15 15 16.66 16.66 16.66 18.33 18.33 20 20 21.66 21.66 23.33 23.33 25 25 26.66 26.66 28.33 28.33 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 5 5 5 5 5 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.33 10 10 10 10 11.66 11.66 11.66 13.33 13.33 13.33 15 15 15 16.66 16.66 18.33 18.33 18.33 20 20 21.66 21.66 21.66 BC
BC LEGAL
B R I N G I N G C L AR I T Y
Appendix 2:
Ready Reckoner Table of awards
by age and severity of symptoms
Page
Page 37
38
READY RECKONER TABLE: AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS (WITHOUT 10% UPLIFT) AGE NIHL (dB) TINNITUS Up to 30 Slight Page 39 36‐40 41‐45 46‐50 51‐55 56‐60 61‐65 66‐70 71+ £4,505 £4,345 £6,020.55 £4,185 £4,030 £4,359.02 £3,870 £3,710 £7,535
£6,188.97 £11,685.22 £7,110 £6,680 £6,255 £5,830 £5,400 £9,230 £2,142.01 £10,454.02 £8,930 £9,726.94 £8,635 £8,340 None £5,150 £4,980 £4,825 £6,865.20 £4,665
£6,645.78 £8,366.24 Slight/ £9,250 £8,820 £8,390 £7,965 £9,820 £9,101.69 £9,525
£5,362.83 £6,013.83 £7,108.73 £8,538.98 Mild £11,000 £10,705 £10,410 £7,938.03 £10,115 £6,404.24 £8,227.63 £8,817.18 Moderate £20,890 £11,066.30 £19,690 £18,490 £17,290 £16,090
£12,671.03 £12,860.79 £14,890 £25,678.52 £13,690
£10,981.56 £15,380.24 £12,490 £11,290 £14,360.50 £10,090 Severe £33,500 £32,200 £30,900 £29,600 £28,300 £27,000 £25,700 £24,400 £23,100 £21,800 £6,800 £6,640 £8,624.37 £6,480 £6,551.37 £6,325 £5,950.39 £9,055.23 £6,165
£6,235.15 £7,370.30 £10,606.95 £6,005 £5,845 £2,470.46 £8,414.31 £5,685 £5,530 £9,180 £8,855
£6,170.78 £7,094.60 £7,713.47 £8,530 £8,200 £6,815.06 £7,875 £7,545 £7,220 £9,835 £6,280.06 £8,374.63 £9,640
£7,665.10 £7,942.79 £9,644.82 £10,998.63 £12,881.61 £9,445 £9,250 £5,183.13 £14,600 £8,380.92 £10,246.78 £13,400 £8,234.86 £12,200 £10,285.06 £11,000 £26,310 £19,733.38 £30,863.26 £25,110 £23,910 £22,710 None Some 31‐35 Slight/ £6,970 £10,160 £9,835 Mild £11,000 £6,038.70 £10,815 £8,363.21 Moderate £21,800 £20,600 Severe £33,500 £32,310 £32,347.81 £9,510 £10,425 £10,230 £9,714.45 £9,819.83 £19,400 £18,200 £17,000
£10,873.40 £12,808.47 £13,718.18 £18,594.23 £31,110 £29,910 £28,710 £10,620 £10,030
£1,743.86 £6,240.77 £7,942.79 £10,029.20 £10,872.18 £15,800
£3,150.06 £13,381.10 £16,455.40 £17,402.17 £27,510 £20,060.09 £26,357.94 Moderate Severe None £17,255 £16,455 £15,660 £14,865 £14,070 £13,275
£12,647.70 £19,350.36 £12,480
£7,368.03 £15,831.05 £11,680
£5,176.03 £5,501.82 £10,885 7,906.47 £10,090 Slight/ £18,770 £17,845 £16,915 £15,980 £15,050 £14,120 £13,185 £12,255 £11,325 £10,390 £13,885 £12,825 £6,129.54 £8,553.09 £11,760 £10,695 £14,600 £13,400 £12,200 £11,000 £26,920 £25,820 £24,720 £23,620 £17,760
£16,847.13 £17,255 £19,700 £19,075 £21,640 £20,890 £23,580 £22,710 £25,523 £14,535.49 £24,530 £14,950
£8,623.60 £9,007.79 £11,702.17 £15,800
£18,285 Mild £20,280 £19,205 £12,378.71 £18,140 £17,080 £16,015 Moderate £21,800 £16,065.05 £20,600 £19,400 £18,200
£14,802.89 £17,000 Severe £33,500 £32,420 £31,320 £30,220 £29,120 £19,275 £18,770 £18,265
£3,923.68 £21,580 £20,955 £20,330 None £21,800 £21,290 £20,785 £20,280 £19,780
£14,997.36 Slight/ £24,730 £24,090 £23,465 £22,835 £22,210 £28,020 Mild £27,655 £26,890 £26,140 £25,390 £24,640 £23,890 £23,140 Moderate £30,580 £29,690 £28,820 £27,945 £27,075 £26,200 £25,330 Severe £33,500 £32,490 £31,495 £30,500 £21,470.51 £29,505 £28,510 £27,515 £22,390
£3,633.03 £21,278.45 £24,455
£23,065.99 £26,520 £52,958.92 Explanatory Notes: 1. The highest figure in red bold (bottom left) is the upper bracket of the 12th edition of the JC Guidelines without the 10% uplift. The lowest award (top right corner) represents HHJ Inglis’ view in the Nottingham and Derbyshire Deafness Litigation [2007] EWHC B1 (QB) [127] that the lowest award for NIHL was likely to be in the region of £3,710 (updated to October 2013 without the 10% uplift). 2. It is assumed that awards at the bottom end of the JC bracket will involve cases where (i) the claimant was elderly and likely to have experienced some hearing loss anyway; and (ii) there was limited hearing loss and no tinnitus. The lower bracket figure of £3,710 is therefore placed in the top right hand corner of the table (claimants aged 70+ / limited hearing loss and no tinnitus). 3. Conversely, the upper bracket figure of £33,500 occupies the bottom left hand side of the table (claimants aged up to 40 with severe hearing loss and severe tinnitus). 4. Estimated awards at different severity of symptoms and ages are based on interpolation of the JC Guidelines between the far left and far right columns. 5. All estimated figures are shown in bold. Page 40 6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
We have compared the estimated figures with actual awards (where these exist)based again on age / severity of symptoms. Cases not identifying the severity of tinnitus are omitted from this table but appear in the tables of common law awards. Italicised awards represent indicated awards that would have been made had liability been established. Where awards significantly cover two brackets they appear in both brackets. Old authorities tended to award less than more current awards. They are therefore often anomalously low. Some actual awards appear entirely anomalous, without explanation. There is sometimes little consistency between awards. Page 41 READY RECKONER TABLE: AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS (WITH 10% UPLIFT) AGE NIHL (dB) TINNITUS Up to 30 Slight (up to 15 dB) 41‐45 46‐50 51‐55 56‐60 61‐65 66‐70 71+ £4,955 £4,780 £6,622.61 £4,605 £4,430 £4,794.92 £4,255 £4,080 £8,290
£6,807.87 £12,853.74 £7,820 £7,350 £6,880 £6,410 £5,940 £10,800 £10,011.86 £10,475
£5,899.11 £6,615.21 £7,819.60 £9,392.88 £10,150 £2,356.21 £11,499.42 £9,825 £10,699.63 £9,500 £9,175 None £5,665 £5,480 £5,305 £7,551.72 Slight/ occasional £10,175 £9,700 £9,230 £8,731.83 £8,760 Mild £12,100 £11,775 £11,125 £7,044.66 £9,050.39 £9,698.90 £11,450 Moderate £22,980 £12,172.93 £21,660 £20,340 £19,020 £17,700
£13,938.13 £14,146.87 £16,380 £28,246.37 £15,060
£12,079.72 £16,918.26 £13,740 £12,420 £15,796.55 £11,100 Severe £36,850 £35,420 £33,990 £32,560 £31,130 £29,700 £28,270 £26,840 £25,410 £23,980 £7,130 £7,206.51 £6,955 £6,545.43 £9,960.75 £6,780
£6,858.67 £8,107.33 £11,667.65 £6,605 £6,430 £2,717.51 £9,255.74 £6,255 £6,080 £10,100 £9,740
£6,787.86 £7,804.06 £8,484.82 £9,380 £9,020 £7,496.57 £8,660 £8,300 £7,940 £11,465 £11,250 £10,685.90 £10,801.81 £11,035 £1,918.25 £6,864.85 £8,737.07 £11,032.12 £11,959.40 £10,820 £6,908.07 £9,212.09 £10,605
£8,431.61 £8,737.07 £10,609.30 £12,098.49 £14,169.77 £10,390 £10,175 £5,701.44 £20,020 £18,700
£11,960.74 £14,089.32 £15,090.00 £20,453.65 £17,380
£3,465.07 £14,719.21 £18,100.94 £19,142.39 £16,060 £9,219.01 £11,271.46 £14,740 £9,058.35 £13,420 £11,313.57 £12,100 Slight/ occasional Mild Moderate Page 42 36‐40 £5,130
£7,310.36 £9,202.86 None Some (16 to 30 dB) 31‐35 £7,665 £11,175 £12,100 £6,642.57 £23,980 £7,480 £10,820 £11,895 £9,199.53 £22,660 £7,305 £9,486.81 £10,460 £11,680 £21,340 Moderate (31 to 45 dB) Severe (46+ dB) £30,260
£22,066.10 £28,993.73 £14,600
£13,912.47 £21,285.40 £28,940
£21,706.72 £33,949.59 £13,725
£8,104.83 £17,414.16 £27,620 £26,300.00 £24,980 £12,850
£5,693.63 £6,052.00 £11,975 £8,697.12 £11,100 £15,530 £14,505 £13,480 £12,455 £11,430 £15,275 £14,105 £6,742.49 £9,408.40 £12,935 £11,765 £16,060 £14,740 £13,420 £12,100 £30,820 £29,610 £28,400 £27,190 £25,980 £21,755
£16,497.10 £21,200 £20,645 £20,090
£4,316.05 £19,535
£18,531.84 £18,980 £25,120 £24,430 £23,740 £23,050 £22,360 £21,670 £20,980 £28,755 £27,930 £27,105 £26,280 £25,455 £23,805 £22,980 £32,660 £31,700 £30,740 £29,780 £28,820 £27,860 £25,940 £24,980 £35,740 £34,645 £33,550 £23,617.56 £32,455 £31,360 £30,265 £28,075 £26,980 Severe £36,850 £35,540 £35,582.59 £34,220 £32,900 £31,580 None £18,980 £18,100 £17,225 £16,350 £15,475 Slight/
occasional £20,645 £19,630 £18,605 £17,580 £16,555 Mild £22,310 £21,125 £13,616.58 £19,955 £18,785 £17,615 Moderate £23,980 £17,671.56 £22,660 £21,340 £20,020
£16,283.18 £18,700 Severe £36,850 £35,660 £34,450 £33,240 £32,030 None £23,980 £23,420 £22,865 £22,310 Slight/
occasional £27,200 £26,500 £25,810 Mild £30,420 £29,580 Moderate £33,640 Severe £36,850 £16,445
£9,485.96 £9,908.57 £12,872.39 £17,380
£20,113.50 £24,630
£3,996.33 £23,406.30 £26,900
£25,372.59 £29,170 £58,254.81 Explanatory Notes: 1. The highest figure in red bold (bottom left) is the upper bracket of the 12th edition of the JC Guidelines with the 10% uplift. The lowest award (top right corner) represents HHJ Inglis’ view in the Nottingham and Derbyshire Deafness Litigation [2007] EWHC B1 (QB) [127] that the lowest award for NIHL was likely to be in the region of £4,080 (updated to October 2013 with a 10% uplift). 2. It is assumed that awards at the bottom end of the JC bracket will involve cases where (i) the claimant was elderly and likely to have experienced some hearing loss anyway; and (ii) there was limited hearing loss and no tinnitus. The lower bracket figure of £4,080 is therefore placed in the top right hand corner of the table (claimants aged 70+ / limited hearing loss and no tinnitus). 3. Conversely, the upper bracket figure of £36,850 occupies the bottom left hand side of the table (claimants aged up to 40 with severe hearing loss and severe tinnitus). 4. Estimated awards at different severity of symptoms and ages are based on interpolation of the JC Guidelines between the far left and far right columns. Page 43 5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
All estimated figures are shown in bold. We have compared the estimated figures with actual awards (where these exist) (artificially inflated by 10%)based again on age / severity of symptoms. Cases not identifying the severity of tinnitus are omitted from this table but appear in the tables of common law awards. Italicised awards represent indicated awards that would have been made had liability been established. Where awards significantly cover two brackets they appear in both brackets. Old authorities tended to award less than more current awards. They are therefore often anomalously low. Some actual awards appear entirely anomalous, without explanation. There is sometimes little consistency between awards. Page 44 BC
BC LEGAL
B R I N G I N G C L AR I T Y
Appendix 3:
PSLA awards by award size
Page
Page 38
45
APPENDIX 3: PSLA AWARDS BY AWARD SIZE Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 £1,743.86 £2,142.01 £2,470.46 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference MILD TINNITUS. WAGGOTT v SWAN HUNTER SHIPBUILDERS LTD (1983); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0502288 55 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 23‐30dB. 59 C SUSTAINED HIGH FREQUENCY SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS IN C DID SUFFER FROM MILD TINNITUS. BOTH EARS OF 12dB DUE TO NOISE EXPOSURE. JONES v SAUNDERS VALVE CO. LTD (2011); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201974 63 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 20‐42dB. NO TINNITUS. BLACKLOCK v SWAN HUNTER SHIPBUILDERS LTD (1983); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500001 TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. NICHOLSON v SMITH’s SHIPREPAIRERS (NORTH SHIELDS) LTD (1983); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501619 69 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF BETWEEN 27 AND 42dB. 61 VERY SLIGHT HEARING LOSS. 17‐
35dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. MITCHELL v VICKERS ARMSTRONG LTD AND ANOTHER (1983); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501533 £3,150.06 54 C SUSTAINED HIGH FREQUENCY SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS. MEDICAL REPORTS SUGGEST C HAD SUSTAINED 20dB OF NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS. C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE TINNITUS. WHALLEY v BAKER PERKINS LTD (2012); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0202015 £3,633.03 63 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 57‐
68dB. MILD TINNITUS. GRAY v SMITH’s SHIP REPAIRERS (NORTH SHIELDS) LTD, NOVEMBER £2,470.46 £2,615.78 Page 46 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference 1983; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500877 £3,923.68 £4,359.02 £5,176.03 62 HEARING LOSS OF 52‐57dB. 61 MODEST HEARING LOSS OF 9.2 dB OVER 1,2 AND 3 kHz. 62 MILD NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 36dB. NO TINNITUS. THOMPSON & ORS v SMITH’s SHIP REPAIRERS (NORTH SHIELDS) LTD (1983); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0502199 NO TINNITUS ALDRED V CORTAULDS NORTHERN TEXTILES LTD (2012); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505291 NO TINNITUS. GALLAGHER v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505252 73 CUNNINGHAM v (1) MILLOM HEMATITE ORE & IRON ORE CO. LTD C EXPERIENCED BILATERAL TINNITUS SUSTAINED, C (2) BAE SYSTEMS MARINE LTD (3) HEARING LOSS OF 24.3 dB OVER 1, EXPERIENCED A CONSTANT “FIZZING” COURTAULDS TEXTILE HOLDINGS 2 & 3kHz. TINNITUS. LTD (2012); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0202060 £5,362.83 54 C EXPERIENCED MILD HEARING LOSS, HIS BINAURAL IMPAIRMENT BEING 9.3dB AT 1, 2 AND 3 kHz. C ALSO SUFFERED FROM HYPERACUSIS. C DID SUFFER FROM OCCASIONAL MILD TINNITUS. KEARNEY v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LIMITED (1998); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501230 £5,501.82 61 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 32dB. NO TINNITUS. DAVIES (AJ) v FORD MOTOR CO, JULY 1997; LAWTEL REPORT NO. £5,183.13 Page 47 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference AM0505250 TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. MUSTAFA v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989, LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501604 TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. PHILLIPS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505251 NO TINNITUS. CARDY v FORD MOTOR CO, ARIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500346 MILD TINNITUS. GREENIDGE v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500890 £5,673.42 48 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 16dB. £5,823.03 56 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 19dB. 46 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 17dB. 54 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 15dB. 54 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 15dB. NO TINNITUS. DAVIES v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LTD, MAY 1997; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500535 £6,038.70 30 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 30dB AND HAD SOME DIFFICULTY PICKING UP CONVERSATION. C SUFFERED FROM INTERMITTENT MILD TINNITUS WHICH CEASED AFTER RETIREMENT. SWARBRICK v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505249 £6,129.54 61 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 32dB. MILD TINNITUS. McAFFERTY v RECEIVER FOR METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT, JUNE 1975* £6,170.78 48 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 20dB. TINNITUS, NOISE IN THE EARS FOR AN HOUR IF EXPOSED TO NOISE AT WORK. CLARK v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500404 £6,142.29 50 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF SLIGHT TINNITUS. HHJ INGLIS NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND £5,950.39 £6,013.83 £6,020.55 Page 48 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies 10‐20 dB AT 4 kHz. 55 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 24dB. £6,240.77 £6,240.77 £6,235.15 £6,280.06 £6,404.24 £6,470.03 Page 49 Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference SUGGESTED THAT THE MINIMUM DERBYSHIRE DEAFNESS LITIGATION NIHL AWARD IS LIKELY TO BE £3000 [2007] EWHC B1 (QB) [127]; BAKER V (3,720.83 (UPDATED OCTOBER 2013)) QUANTUM CLOTHING GROUP WITHOUT TINNITUS. IF THERE IS LIMITED [2011] UKSC 17 [6]* SLIGHT TINNITUS, WHICH IS A NUISANCE TO THE CLAIMANT, IT WILL BE AT LEAST £2000 (£2,480.55 (UPDATED OCTOBER 2013) MORE. NO TINNITUS. TONG v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505247 52 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 16dB. MILD TINNITUS. BYGRAVES v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500299 60 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 17dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. LINDO v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989 59 C SUSTAINED BILATERAL SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS OF 23dB over 1, 2 and 3 kHz C DID SUFFER FROM MILD TINNITUS. COOTE v (1) RF BROOKES LTD (2) G COSTA & CO. LTD (2009); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201928 43 SLIGHT HEARING LOSS OF 13dB. C SUFFERED FROM MILD TINNITUS UP TO 3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK, EACH OCCASION LASTING AROUND A MINUTE. TRUMAN v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505248 62 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 24dB CAUSES C TO MISS PARTS OF CONVERSATION AND TELEVISION TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. FELLOWS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505246 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference DIALOGUE. £6,470.03 64 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 22dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. BROOKS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT AM0505245 £6,551.37 45 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 21 dB. NO TINNITUS. JENKINS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); AM0505244 £6,611.55 56 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 20dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. ABRAHAM v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989, LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0503817 £6,645.78 43 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 12.5dB. NO TINNITUS. FAULKNER v BRITISH RAIL ENG LTD, JUNE 1983* 53 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 22dB TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. JOSEPH v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501206 £6,808.11 INTERMITTENT TINNITUS ONCE EVERY 2‐3 WEEKS, LASTING ONE TO A NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF FEW HOURS ON EACH OCCASION. 16dB. DID CAUSE SOME SLEEP DISTURBANCES. HONEYCHURCH v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505243 £6,815.06 58 £6,865.20 36 C SUSTAINED BILATERAL SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS OF 11.9dB. C DID NOT SUFFER FROM TINNITUS. MILLER v ARGOS LTD (2011); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201918 £7,094.60 47 MILD TO MODERATE NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS of 16dB. SLIGHT INTERMITTENT TINNITUS. HOLMES v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505241 £7,094.60 48 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 32dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. HIGHER AWARD FOR YOUNG D L DAVIES v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO. Page 50 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference CLAIMANT WHOSE MAIN INTEREST AND RECREATION IS LISTENING TO CLASSICAL MUSIC. AM0505242 £7,108.73 51 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 15dB. MILD TINNITUS. THOMAS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505240 £7,368.03 57 C SUFFERED FROM FAIRLY SEVERE HEARING LOSS OF 32dB. NO TINNITUS. MATHEWS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505239 £7,375.45 58 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 20dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. BROWN v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500253 £7,370.30 53 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 15.3dB. NO TINNITUS. FRY v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1996* £7,665.10 61 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 20dB. MILD TINNITUS INTERMITTENT IN LEFT EAR ONLY. RICHARDS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505238 £7,713.47 47 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 27dB. OCCASIONAL INSIGNIFICANT TINNITUS. BARNES v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500121 68 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 38dB. NO TINNITUS. AMOS v CALOR GAS LTD, SEPTEMBER 1997; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500045 36 C SUSTAINED BILATERAL SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS OF 11.4dB. C DID SUFFER FROM MILD TINNITUS. BRAMLEY v ARGOS LTD (2011); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201935 £7,906.47 £7,938.03 Page 51 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference £7,942.79 48 VERY SUBSTANTIAL HEARING LOSS WAS SUSTAINED BY C. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. HOLDER v FORD MOTOR CO. (1989); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501058 £7,942.79 51 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 23dB. MILD TINNITUS DUBAR v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500624 £7,942.79 61 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 22dB. MILD TINNITUS. DRISCOLL v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500621 C SUFFERED FROM CONTINUOUS LEFT SIDED TINNITUS AND EXTREMELY INTERMITTENT RIGHT SIDED MODERATE TINNITUS. PRITCHARD v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505237 £8,234.86 62 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 27dB. £8,227.63 44 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 15dB. VERY MILD TINNITUS. BLAIZE v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1988* £8,363.21 33 MILD NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 20dB. C SUFFERED FROM INTERMITTENT MILD TINNITUS WHICH WAS SHORT‐
LIVED. POWELL v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505235 £8,366.24 42 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 13.3dB. NO TINNITUS. LEWIS v BTR PLC., MAY 1999; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501338 £8,374.63 57 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 29dB. MILD TINNITUS. FIELD v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500730 £8,380.92 57 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 19dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. HAYES v FORD MOTOR CO, NOVEMBER 1995* £8,414.31 62 C EXPERIENCED BINAURAL NO TINNITUS WAS SUFFERED. DEW v BRITISH Page 52 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity HEARING LOSS OF 20dB OVER 1,2 AND 3Khz. Name of Case and Reference TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC (2012); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201945 C SUFFERED FROM A CONSTANT MILD TINNITUS IN LEFT EAR HOWEVER IT DID NOT HAVE A DRAMATIC EFFECT ON C’s LIFE. PUXLEY v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505236 MILD TINNITUS. MUNRO v MOD, JUNE 1985* £8,538.98 52 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 12 dB. £8,553.09 65 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 31.77 dB. £8,623.60 53 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 33dB. MILD TINNITUS. ST ROMAINE v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0502081 £8,624.37 36 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 18dB. NO TINNITUS. PYBIS v LIVERPOOL CORP, JUNE 1987* £8,817.18 45 C EXPERIENCED NOISE INDUCED DEAFNESS OF 7.5dB AT 1, 2 and 3kHz DUE TO NOISE EXPOSURE. C EXPERIENCED MILD TINNITUS 2‐3 TIMES A DAY, EACH BURST LASTING AROUND 20‐25 MINUTES. WARD v JELD WEN UK LTD (2004); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0503618 £9,007.79 51 £9,055.23 £9,101.69 Page 53 C EXPERIENCED MILD TINNITUS C EXPERIENCED HEARING LOSS OF WHICH LASTED A FEW MINUTES AT A 31.4dB. TIME. JAMES KELLETT v BRITISH RAIL ENGINEERING LTD (1984)* 46 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 25.6dB. NO TINNITUS. EARLAM v HEPWORTH HEATING LTD, JUNE 1996; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500650 49 MODERATE NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 10dB. C SUFFERED FROM BILATERAL INTERMITTENT MILD TINNITUS WHICH AFFECTED THE CLAIMANT’s HARRY v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505234 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference SLEEP. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT REPORTED. BRENT v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500234 63 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 25dB MILD TINNITUS WRIGHT v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0502429 49 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 20dB. MILD TINNITUS. BULLER v AUSTIN ROVER GROUP, JULY 1995; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500276 63 C SUFFERED FROM NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 14.6dB. C EXPERIENCED A BUZZING NOISE AFTER NOISE EXPOSURE WHICH LASTED AROUND AN HOUR. MILD TINNITUS. MARTIN ALEXANDER PICTON v SOUTHFIELD ENGINEERING LTD (2007)* 50 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS of 20dB. C SUSTAINED INTERMITTENT MILD/MODERATE TINNITUS WHICH AFFECTED HIM. BARNETT v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505233 58 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 20dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. GREEN v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL (1989); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500881 33 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 14dB. £9,644.82 £9,714.45 £9,366.36 £9,726.94 £9,819.83 £9,917.32 £10,029.20 54 C SUFFERED FROM MILD/MODERATE NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF TINNITUS, EXPERIENCING 22dB. INTERMITTENT RINGING IN BOTH EARS. £10,246.78 59 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF Page 54 C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE MAYERS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505231 T B DAVIES v FORD MOTOR CO. Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference TINNITUS WHICH CONSISTED OF A BUZZING IN ONE OR BOTH EARS OCCURRING 10‐12 TIMES A DAY, APPROXIMATELY LASTING 2‐3 MINUTES. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505232 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 26.6dB MODERATE TINNITUS. NEIL v UEC INDUSTRIES, JUNE 2000* 60 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 13dB. C SUFFERED FROM INTERMITTENT MILD TINNITUS 3 OR 4 TIMES A DAY FOR AROUND 3 TO 4 MINUTES ON EACH OCCASION. ADDITIONALLY C’s SLEEP WAS INTERRUPTED FOR AROUND 15 MINUTES. D T W DAVIES v FORD MOTOR COMPANY (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AMO5O5230 £10,606.95 55 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 23.3dB. NO TINNITUS. HOBSON v TANQUERAY GORDON LTD, MARCH 1983; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM1747168 £10,872.18 52 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 25dB. C SUFFERED FROM MILD INTERMITTENT TINNITUS. WADE v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505229 £10,873.40 49 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 20 dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. STEPHENS v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LTD, JUNE 1995* 23dB. £10,285.06 £10,454.02 67 £10,981.56 56 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 9dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. JONES v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501188 £10,998.63 63 C SUFFERED NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 28.85dB OVER C ALSO SUFFERED FROM MILD TINNITUS. SQUIRES v CORUS (2006); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201050 Page 55 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference 1, 2 AND 3kHz. £11,066.30 29 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 8.6dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. KAY v IW COOK (WIVENHOE) LTD, JUNE 1987* £11,685.22 48 SLIGHT NEUROSENSORY HEARING LOSS OF 15dB. SLIGHT TINNITUS WHICH DEVELOPED INTO A CONSTANT BUZZING. TUCKER v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505227 £11,702.17 55 C SUFFERED FROM VERY SIGNIFICANT HEARING LOSS OF 33dB WHICH CAUSED SEVERE INCONVENIENCE TO C’s ENJOYMENT. C SUSTAINED CONTINUOUS MILD TINNITUS WHICH AFFECTS THE CLAIMANT’s SLEEP. MASON v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505228 £12,153.13 74 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 6.3 dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. IF NO TINNITUS AWARD WOULD HAVE BEEN £5,208.49. PATEL V AKZO NOBEL LIMITED (UNREPORTED, BLACKPOOL COUNTY COURT, 08/08/2008) £12,378.71 33 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 35dB. MILD TINNITUS. ROLLINSON v THOMAS C WILD LTD, JUNE 1979* £12,647.70 55 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 32.7dB. NO TINNITUS. CASE v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1990; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505280 46 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 12.7dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. EVANS v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500686 WITHERS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505225 R P PUGH v FORD MOTOR CO. £12,671.03 £12,808.47 46 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 17dB. C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE TINNITUS WHICH CAUSES C IRRITATION AND ANNOYANCE AS WELL AS AFFECTING SLEEP. £12,860.79 49 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF C SUFFERED FROM A CONSTANT Page 56 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference 15dB. RIGHT SIDED MODERATE TINNITUS. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505226 £12,881.61 63 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 28.8dB. MILD TINNITUS. ELLIOT v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1990* £13,381.10 51 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 17dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. READ v BRITISH RAIL BOARD, OCTOBER 1997* £13,718.18 46 C SUFFERED CONTINUOUS NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF MODERATE TINNITUS WHICH CAUSES 23 dB. HIM DIFFICULTY IN GETTING BACK TO SLEEP IF WOKEN. JONES v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505224 £14,026.69 44 C SUFFERED FROM SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS ON ONE SIDE AS WELL AS OTOSCLEROSIS. £14,360.50 66 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 13dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. MORRIS v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995 £14,535.49 68 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 55.5dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. WARNE v OCTAVIUS HUNT LTD, JANUARY 2002; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0502849 £14,802.89 43 SIGNIFICANT NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 38dB AT HIGHER FREQUENCIES. C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE TINNITUS. HURLOW v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505223 £14,997.36 50 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 49dB. NO TINNITUS. BERRY v STONE MANGANESE, DECEMBER 1971* £15,380.24 56 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE RADFORD v FORD MOTOR CO. Page 57 NO TINNITUS. HOEY v BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION (1991); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501056 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies 14dB. Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference TINNITUS. C FOUND THAT READING REQUIRED EXTRA EFFORT. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505222 NO TINNITUS. BIXBY v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1990; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505278 £15,831.05 58 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 39.74dB. £16,065.05 20 C SUFFERED HEARING LOSS IN HIS LEFT EAR OF 37.33dB. C ALSO SUFFERS CONSTANT BELL v MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (2011); TINNITUS WHICH CAUSES HIM SLEEP LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505075 DISTURBANCE. C SUFFERED FROM CONSTANT MODERATE TINNITUS WHICH WAS COMPARED TO A “KETTLE BOILING”. IT TOOK C AN HOUR AND A HALF TO FALL ASLEEP AND OCCASIONALLY SLEEP WAS DISTURBED. R PUGH v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505221 NO TINNITUS. SMITH v BRITISH RAIL, JUNE 1980 £16,455.40 53 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 26dB. IT WAS FOUND THAT IN HIGHER FREQUENCIES THE LOSS WAS VERY SIGNIFICANT. £16,847.13 66 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 78.3dB. £17,402.17 £18,285.42 Page 58 54 C SUFFERED FROM QUITE A SERIOUS NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF CASE OF MODERATE BILATERAL 29dB. TINNITUS WHICH HAD A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON C’s ENJOYMENT OF LIFE. 52 C SUFFERED FROM NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS AT OF 30dB at 1kHz, 2kHz AND 3kHz ON THE LEFT EAR AND 32.33dB ON THE RIGHT EAR. C SUFFERED FROM CONSTANT MODERATE TINNITUS AT 6kHz AND 15dB. IT CAUSED HIM SLEEP DISTURBANCE, CONCENTRATION PROBLEMS AND HEADACHES. ROACH v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505220 DAVID HOLLAND v HOECHST TRESPAPHAN (2001); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0200253 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference £18,594.23 48 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 18dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. MEYRICK v AUSTIN ROVER GROUP, JULY 1995* £19,350.36 55 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 40dB. NO TINNITUS. ROBINSON v BRITISH RAIL, JUNE 1981* £19,669.77 57 C SUFFERED FROM PERMANENT HEARING LOSS. C ALSO SUFFERED FROM TINNITUS. BARRY JOHN CLARK v TRELLEBORG (2006); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201039 £19,733.38 56 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 24dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. OWENS v EXPESS GROUP, JANUARY 1991; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM1763626 £20,060.09 54 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 24dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. EDWARDS (ALFRED) v MOD, JUNE 1982 £20,503.22 47 C SUSTAINED SIGNIFICANT PERMANENT LOSS OF HEARING WHICH AFFECTED HIS PERSONAL LIFE. C ALSO SUFFERED FROM MODERATE TINNITUS. BRAGG v FORD MOTOR CO. (1992); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500224 £21,278.45 61 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 55.4dB. MILD TINNITUS. IRONS v MOD, JUNE 1984* £21,470.51 42 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 48.98dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. ROBINSON v BRITISH GAS, NOVEMBER 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM1763532 £23,065.99 65 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 56‐
60dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. TRIPP v MOD, DECEMBER 1982; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM1748777 £25,678.52 52 C SUFFERED FROM PERMANENT HEARING LOSS OF C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE TINNITUS. HILLMAN v C & J CLARK INTERNATIONAL LTD (2006); LAWTEL Page 59 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity APPROXIMATELY 9dB AND HAD TO WEAR HEARING AIDS FROM 2003. Name of Case and Reference REPORT NO. AM0201085 £26,357.94 54 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 27.5dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. HESLOP v METALOCK, JUNE 1981* £30,863.26 56 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 29.33dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. HILL v ARC (SOUTH WALES) LTD, JULY 1998; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501031 £32,347.81 35 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 15‐
18dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. BAILEY v ICI Ltd, JUNE 1979* £52,958.92 65 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 76.6dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. ABRAMOWICZ v CASBORUNDUM CO LTD, JUNE 1981* * Not available on Lawtel. Page 60 BC
BC LEGAL
B R I N G I N G C L AR I T Y
Appendix 4:
PSLA awards by age
Page
Page 39
61
APPENDIX 4: PSLA AWARDS BY AGE Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference C ALSO SUFFERS CONSTANT BELL v MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (2011); TINNITUS WHICH CAUSES HIM SLEEP LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505075 DISTURBANCE. £16,065.05 20 C SUFFERED HEARING LOSS IN HIS LEFT EAR OF 37.33dB. £11,066.30 29 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 8.6dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. KAY v IW COOK (WIVENHOE) LTD, JUNE 1987* 30 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 30dB AND HAD SOME DIFFICULTY PICKING UP CONVERSATION. C SUFFERED FROM INTERMITTENT MILD TINNITUS WHICH CEASED AFTER RETIREMENT. SWARBRICK v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505249 £8,363.21 33 MILD NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 20dB. C SUFFERED FROM INTERMITTENT MILD TINNITUS WHICH WAS SHORT‐
LIVED. POWELL v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505235 £9,366.36 33 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 14dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT REPORTED. BRENT v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500234 £12,378.71 33 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 35dB. MILD TINNITUS. ROLLINSON v THOMAS C WILD LTD, JUNE 1979* £32,347.81 35 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 15‐
18dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. BAILEY v ICI Ltd, JUNE 1979* £6,865.20 36 C SUSTAINED BILATERAL SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS OF 11.9dB. C DID NOT SUFFER FROM TINNITUS. MILLER v ARGOS LTD (2011); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201918 £7,938.03 36 C SUSTAINED BILATERAL SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS C DID SUFFER FROM MILD TINNITUS. BRAMLEY v ARGOS LTD (2011); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201935 £6,038.70 Page 62 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference OF 11.4dB. £8,624.37 36 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 18dB. NO TINNITUS. PYBIS v LIVERPOOL CORP, JUNE 1987* £8,366.24 42 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 13.3dB. NO TINNITUS. LEWIS v BTR PLC., MAY 1999; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501338 42 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 48.98dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. ROBINSON v BRITISH GAS, NOVEMBER 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM1763532 TRUMAN v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505248 £21,470.51 £6,404.24 43 SLIGHT HEARING LOSS OF 13dB. C SUFFERED FROM MILD TINNITUS UP TO 3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK, EACH OCCASION LASTING AROUND A MINUTE. £6,645.78 43 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 12.5dB. NO TINNITUS. FAULKNER v BRITISH RAIL ENG LTD, JUNE 1983* £14,802.89 43 SIGNIFICANT NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 38dB AT HIGHER FREQUENCIES. C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE TINNITUS. HURLOW v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505223 £8,227.63 44 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 15dB. VERY MILD TINNITUS. BLAIZE v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1988* £14,026.69 44 C SUFFERED FROM SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS ON ONE SIDE AS WELL AS OTOSCLEROSIS. NO TINNITUS. HOEY v BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION (1991); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501056 £6,551.37 45 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 21 dB. NO TINNITUS. JENKINS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); AM0505244 Page 63 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference 45 C EXPERIENCED NOISE INDUCED DEAFNESS OF 7.5dB AT 1, 2 and 3kHz DUE TO NOISE EXPOSURE. C EXPERIENCED MILD TINNITUS 2‐3 TIMES A DAY, EACH BURST LASTING AROUND 20‐25 MINUTES. WARD v JELD WEN UK LTD (2004); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0503618 46 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 17dB. NO TINNITUS. CARDY v FORD MOTOR CO, ARIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500346 46 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 25.6dB. NO TINNITUS. EARLAM v HEPWORTH HEATING LTD, JUNE 1996; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500650 46 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 12.7dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. EVANS v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500686 46 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 17dB. C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE TINNITUS WHICH CAUSES C IRRITATION AND ANNOYANCE AS WELL AS AFFECTING SLEEP. WITHERS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505225 £13,718.18 46 C SUFFERED CONTINUOUS NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF MODERATE TINNITUS WHICH CAUSES 23 dB. HIM DIFFICULTY IN GETTING BACK TO SLEEP IF WOKEN. £7,094.60 47 MILD TO MODERATE NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS of 16dB. SLIGHT INTERMITTENT TINNITUS. HOLMES v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505241 47 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 27dB. OCCASIONAL INSIGNIFICANT TINNITUS. BARNES v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500121 £8,817.18 £5,950.39 £9,055.23 £12,671.03 £12,808.47 £7,713.47 Page 64 JONES v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505224 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 £20,503.22 £5,673.42 £6,170.78 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference 47 C SUSTAINED SIGNIFICANT PERMANENT LOSS OF HEARING WHICH AFFECTED HIS PERSONAL LIFE. C ALSO SUFFERED FROM MODERATE TINNITUS. BRAGG v FORD MOTOR CO. (1992); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500224 48 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 16dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. MUSTAFA v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989, LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501604 48 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 20dB. TINNITUS, NOISE IN THE EARS FOR AN HOUR IF EXPOSED TO NOISE AT WORK. CLARK v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500404 TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. HIGHER AWARD FOR YOUNG CLAIMANT WHOSE MAIN INTEREST AND RECREATION IS LISTENING TO CLASSICAL MUSIC. D L DAVIES v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505242 £7,094.60 48 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 32dB. £7,942.79 48 VERY SUBSTANTIAL HEARING LOSS WAS SUSTAINED BY C. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. HOLDER v FORD MOTOR CO. (1989); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501058 £11,685.22 48 SLIGHT NEUROSENSORY HEARING LOSS OF 15dB. SLIGHT TINNITUS WHICH DEVELOPED INTO A CONSTANT BUZZING. TUCKER v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505227 £18,594.23 48 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 18dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. MEYRICK v AUSTIN ROVER GROUP, JULY 1995* MODERATE NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 10dB. C SUFFERED FROM BILATERAL INTERMITTENT MILD TINNITUS WHICH AFFECTED THE CLAIMANT’s SLEEP. HARRY v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505234 £9,101.69 Page 65 49 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference MILD TINNITUS. BULLER v AUSTIN ROVER GROUP, JULY 1995; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500276 £9,714.45 49 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 20dB. £10,873.40 49 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 20 dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. STEPHENS v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LTD, JUNE 1995* £12,860.79 49 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 15dB. C SUFFERED FROM A CONSTANT RIGHT SIDED MODERATE TINNITUS. R P PUGH v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505226 £6,188.97 50 SLIGHT TINNITUS. HHJ INGLIS SUGGESTED THAT THE MINIMUM NIHL AWARD IS LIKELY TO BE £3000 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND (3,720.83 (UPDATED OCTOBER 2013)) DERBYSHIRE DEAFNESS LITIGATION NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF WITHOUT TINNITUS. IF THERE IS [2007] EWHC B1 (QB) [127]; BAKER V 10‐20 dB AT 4 kHz. SLIGHT TINNITUS, WHICH IS A QUANTUM CLOTHING GROUP NUISANCE TO THE CLAIMANT, IT LIMITED [2011] UKSC 17 [6]* WILL BE AT LEAST £2000 (£2,480.55 (UPDATED OCTOBER 2013) MORE. £9,819.83 50 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS of 20dB. C SUSTAINED INTERMITTENT MILD/MODERATE TINNITUS WHICH AFFECTED HIM. BARNETT v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505233 £14,997.36 50 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 49dB. NO TINNITUS. BERRY v STONE MANGANESE, DECEMBER 1971* £7,108.73 51 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 15dB. MILD TINNITUS. THOMAS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505240 £7,942.79 51 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF MILD TINNITUS DUBAR v FORD MOTOR CO, Page 66 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity 23dB. Name of Case and Reference JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500624 C EXPERIENCED MILD TINNITUS C EXPERIENCED HEARING LOSS OF WHICH LASTED A FEW MINUTES AT A 31.4dB. TIME. JAMES KELLETT v BRITISH RAIL ENGINEERING LTD (1984)* £9,007.79 51 £13,381.10 51 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 17dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. READ v BRITISH RAIL BOARD, OCTOBER 1997* £6,240.77 52 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 16dB. MILD TINNITUS. BYGRAVES v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500299 £8,538.98 52 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 12 dB. C SUFFERED FROM A CONSTANT MILD TINNITUS IN LEFT EAR HOWEVER IT DID NOT HAVE A DRAMATIC EFFECT ON C’s LIFE. PUXLEY v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505236 £10,872.18 52 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 25dB. C SUFFERED FROM MILD INTERMITTENT TINNITUS. WADE v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505229 52 C SUFFERED FROM NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS AT OF 30dB at 1kHz, 2kHz AND 3kHz ON THE LEFT EAR AND 32.33dB ON THE RIGHT EAR. C SUFFERED FROM CONSTANT MODERATE TINNITUS AT 6kHz AND 15dB. IT CAUSED HIM SLEEP DISTURBANCE, CONCENTRATION PROBLEMS AND HEADACHES. DAVID HOLLAND v HOECHST TRESPAPHAN (2001); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0200253 52 C SUFFERED FROM PERMANENT HEARING LOSS OF APPROXIMATELY 9dB AND HAD TO WEAR HEARING AIDS FROM C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE TINNITUS. HILLMAN v C & J CLARK INTERNATIONAL LTD (2006); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201085 £18,285.42 £25,678.52 Page 67 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. JOSEPH v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501206 NO TINNITUS. FRY v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1996* 2003. £6,808.11 53 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 22dB £7,370.30 53 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 15.3dB. 53 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 33dB. MILD TINNITUS. ST ROMAINE v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0502081 53 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 26dB. IT WAS FOUND THAT IN HIGHER FREQUENCIES THE LOSS WAS VERY SIGNIFICANT. C SUFFERED FROM CONSTANT MODERATE TINNITUS WHICH WAS COMPARED TO A “KETTLE BOILING”. IT TOOK C AN HOUR AND A HALF TO FALL ASLEEP AND OCCASIONALLY SLEEP WAS DISTURBED. R PUGH v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505221 54 C SUSTAINED HIGH FREQUENCY SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS. MEDICAL REPORTS SUGGEST C HAD SUSTAINED 20dB OF NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS. C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE TINNITUS. WHALLEY v BAKER PERKINS LTD (2012); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0202015 54 C EXPERIENCED MILD HEARING LOSS, HIS BINAURAL IMPAIRMENT BEING 9.3dB AT 1, 2 AND 3 kHz. C ALSO SUFFERED FROM HYPERACUSIS. C DID SUFFER FROM OCCASIONAL MILD TINNITUS. KEARNEY v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LIMITED (1998); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501230 £8,623.60 £16,455.40 £3,150.06 £5,362.83 Page 68 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 £6,013.83 £6,020.55 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies 54 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 15dB. 54 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 15dB. Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference MILD TINNITUS. GREENIDGE v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500890 NO TINNITUS. DAVIES v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LTD, MAY 1997; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500535 54 C SUFFERED FROM MILD/MODERATE NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF TINNITUS, EXPERIENCING 22dB. INTERMITTENT RINGING IN BOTH EARS. MAYERS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505231 £17,402.17 54 C SUFFERED FROM QUITE A SERIOUS NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF CASE OF MODERATE BILATERAL 29dB. TINNITUS WHICH HAD A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON C’s ENJOYMENT OF LIFE. ROACH v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505220 £20,060.09 54 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 24dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. EDWARDS (ALFRED) v MOD, JUNE 1982 £26,357.94 54 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 27.5dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. HESLOP v METALOCK, JUNE 1981* £1,743.86 55 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 23‐30dB. MILD TINNITUS. WAGGOTT v SWAN HUNTER SHIPBUILDERS LTD (1983); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0502288 £6,235.15 55 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 24dB. NO TINNITUS. TONG v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505247 £10,606.95 55 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 23.3dB. NO TINNITUS. HOBSON v TANQUERAY GORDON LTD, MARCH 1983; LAWTEL REPORT £10,029.20 Page 69 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference NO. AM1747168 £11,702.17 55 C SUFFERED FROM VERY SIGNIFICANT HEARING LOSS OF 33dB WHICH CAUSED SEVERE INCONVENIENCE TO C’s ENJOYMENT. £12,647.70 55 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 32.7dB. NO TINNITUS. CASE v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1990; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505280 £19,350.36 55 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 40dB. NO TINNITUS. ROBINSON v BRITISH RAIL, JUNE 1981* £5,823.03 56 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 19dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. PHILLIPS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505251 56 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 20dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. ABRAHAM v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989, LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0503817 £6,611.55 C SUSTAINED CONTINUOUS MILD TINNITUS WHICH AFFECTS THE CLAIMANT’s SLEEP. MASON v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505228 £10,981.56 56 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 9dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. JONES v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501188 £15,380.24 56 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 14dB. C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE TINNITUS. C FOUND THAT READING REQUIRED EXTRA EFFORT. RADFORD v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505222 £19,733.38 56 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 24dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. OWENS v EXPESS GROUP, JANUARY 1991; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM1763626 £30,863.26 56 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF SEVERE TINNITUS. HILL v ARC (SOUTH WALES) LTD, JULY Page 70 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity 29.33dB. Name of Case and Reference 1998; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501031 £7,368.03 57 C SUFFERED FROM FAIRLY SEVERE HEARING LOSS OF 32dB. NO TINNITUS. MATHEWS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505239 £8,374.63 57 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 29dB. MILD TINNITUS. FIELD v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500730 £8,380.92 57 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 19dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. HAYES v FORD MOTOR CO, NOVEMBER 1995* £19,669.77 57 C SUFFERED FROM PERMANENT HEARING LOSS. C ALSO SUFFERED FROM TINNITUS. BARRY JOHN CLARK v TRELLEBORG (2006); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201039 £6,815.06 58 INTERMITTENT TINNITUS ONCE EVERY 2‐3 WEEKS, LASTING ONE TO A NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF FEW HOURS ON EACH OCCASION. 16dB. DID CAUSE SOME SLEEP DISTURBANCES. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. BROWN v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500253 58 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 20dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. GREEN v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL (1989); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500881 58 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF NO TINNITUS. BIXBY v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 58 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 20dB. £9,917.32 £15,831.05 £7,375.45 Page 71 HONEYCHURCH v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505243 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity 39.74dB. £2,142.01 £6,280.06 59 59 Name of Case and Reference 1990; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505278 C SUSTAINED HIGH FREQUENCY SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS IN C DID SUFFER FROM MILD TINNITUS. BOTH EARS OF 12dB DUE TO NOISE EXPOSURE. JONES v SAUNDERS VALVE CO. LTD (2011); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201974 C SUSTAINED BILATERAL SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS OF 23dB over 1, 2 and 3 kHz C DID SUFFER FROM MILD TINNITUS. COOTE v (1) RF BROOKES LTD (2) G COSTA & CO. LTD (2009); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201928 C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE TINNITUS WHICH CONSISTED OF A BUZZING IN ONE OR BOTH EARS OCCURRING 10‐12 TIMES A DAY, APPROXIMATELY LASTING 2‐3 MINUTES. T B DAVIES v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505232 £10,246.78 59 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 23dB. £6,240.77 60 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 17dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. LINDO v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989 C SUFFERED FROM INTERMITTENT MILD TINNITUS 3 OR 4 TIMES A DAY FOR AROUND 3 TO 4 MINUTES ON EACH OCCASION. ADDITIONALLY C’s SLEEP WAS INTERRUPTED FOR AROUND 15 MINUTES. D T W DAVIES v FORD MOTOR COMPANY (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AMO5O5230 TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. MITCHELL v VICKERS ARMSTRONG LTD AND ANOTHER (1983); LAWTEL £10,454.02 60 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 13dB. £2,615.78 61 VERY SLIGHT HEARING LOSS. 17‐
35dB. Page 72 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference REPORT NO. AM0501533 NO TINNITUS ALDRED V CORTAULDS NORTHERN TEXTILES LTD (2012); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505291 61 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 32dB. NO TINNITUS. DAVIES (AJ) v FORD MOTOR CO, JULY 1997; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505250 £6,129.54 61 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 32dB. MILD TINNITUS. McAFFERTY v RECEIVER FOR METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT, JUNE 1975* £7,665.10 61 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 20dB. MILD TINNITUS INTERMITTENT IN LEFT EAR ONLY. RICHARDS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505238 £7,942.79 61 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 22dB. MILD TINNITUS. DRISCOLL v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500621 £21,278.45 61 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 55.4dB. MILD TINNITUS. IRONS v MOD, JUNE 1984* NO TINNITUS. THOMPSON & ORS v SMITH’s SHIP REPAIRERS (NORTH SHIELDS) LTD (1983); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0502199 NO TINNITUS. GALLAGHER v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505252 61 MODEST HEARING LOSS OF 9.2 dB OVER 1,2 AND 3 kHz. £5,501.82 £4,359.02 £3,923.68 £5,176.03 Page 73 62 HEARING LOSS OF 52‐57dB. 62 MILD NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 36dB. Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 £6,470.03 £8,234.86 £8,414.31 £2,470.46 £3,633.03 £9,644.82 £9,726.94 Page 74 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 24dB CAUSES C TO MISS PARTS OF CONVERSATION AND TELEVISION DIALOGUE. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. FELLOWS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505246 62 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 27dB. C SUFFERED FROM CONTINUOUS LEFT SIDED TINNITUS AND EXTREMELY INTERMITTENT RIGHT SIDED MODERATE TINNITUS. PRITCHARD v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505237 62 C EXPERIENCED BINAURAL HEARING LOSS OF 20dB OVER 1,2 AND 3Khz. NO TINNITUS WAS SUFFERED. DEW v BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC (2012); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201945 63 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 20‐42dB. NO TINNITUS. BLACKLOCK v SWAN HUNTER SHIPBUILDERS LTD (1983); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500001 MILD TINNITUS. GRAY v SMITH’s SHIP REPAIRERS (NORTH SHIELDS) LTD, NOVEMBER 1983; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500877 62 63 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 57‐
68dB. 63 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 25dB MILD TINNITUS WRIGHT v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0502429 63 C SUFFERED FROM NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 14.6dB. C EXPERIENCED A BUZZING NOISE AFTER NOISE EXPOSURE WHICH LASTED AROUND AN HOUR. MILD TINNITUS. MARTIN ALEXANDER PICTON v SOUTHFIELD ENGINEERING LTD (2007)* Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference C ALSO SUFFERED FROM MILD TINNITUS. SQUIRES v CORUS (2006); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201050 £10,998.63 63 C SUFFERED NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 28.85dB OVER 1, 2 AND 3kHz. £12,881.61 63 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 28.8dB. MILD TINNITUS. ELLIOT v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1990* £6,470.03 64 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 22dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. BROOKS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT AM0505245 £8,553.09 65 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 31.77 dB. MILD TINNITUS. MUNRO v MOD, JUNE 1985* £23,065.99 65 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 56‐
60dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. TRIPP v MOD, DECEMBER 1982; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM1748777 £52,958.92 65 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 76.6dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. ABRAMOWICZ v CASBORUNDUM CO LTD, JUNE 1981* £14,360.50 66 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 13dB. MODERATE TINNITUS. MORRIS v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995 £16,847.13 66 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 78.3dB. NO TINNITUS. SMITH v BRITISH RAIL, JUNE 1980 £10,285.06 67 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 26.6dB MODERATE TINNITUS. NEIL v UEC INDUSTRIES, JUNE 2000* £7,906.47 68 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 38dB. NO TINNITUS. AMOS v CALOR GAS LTD, SEPTEMBER 1997; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500045 £14,535.49 68 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 55.5dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. WARNE v OCTAVIUS HUNT LTD, JANUARY 2002; LAWTEL REPORT NO. Page 75 Updated PSLA Award Claimant’s Age End October 2013 Extent of NIHL and what frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference AM0502849 £2,470.46 £5,183.13 £12,153.13 69 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF BETWEEN 27 AND 42dB. 73 CUNNINGHAM v (1) MILLOM HEMATITE ORE & IRON ORE CO. LTD C EXPERIENCED BILATERAL TINNITUS SUSTAINED, C (2) BAE SYSTEMS MARINE LTD (3) HEARING LOSS OF 24.3 dB OVER 1, EXPERIENCED A CONSTANT “FIZZING” COURTAULDS TEXTILE HOLDINGS 2 & 3kHz. TINNITUS. LTD (2012); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0202060 74 * Not available on Lawtel. Page 76 NICHOLSON v SMITH’s SHIPREPAIRERS (NORTH SHIELDS) LTD (1983); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501619 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 6.3 dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. IF NO TINNITUS AWARD WOULD HAVE BEEN £5,208.49 PATEL V AKZO NOBEL LIMITED (UNREPORTED, BLACKPOOL COUNTY COURT, 08/08/2008) BC
BC LEGAL
B R I N G I N G C L AR I T Y
Disclaimer
This newsletter does not present a complete or
comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it
constitute legal advice. It is intended only to provide an
update on issues that may be of interest to those handling
occupational disease claims. Specialist legal advice
should always be sought in any particular case.
© BC Legal LLP 2013.
BC Legal is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in
England and Wales under number OC379945. We are
authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation
Authority. The registered office is 1 Nelson Mews,
Southend-on-Sea, SS1 1AL. The partners are Boris Cetnik
and Charlotte Owen. More details on the firm can be
found at www.bc-legal.co.uk
Page 40
Partners: B. Cetnik, C. Owen
Registered Office: 1 Nelson Mews, Southend-on-Sea, SS1 1AL
BC Legal LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England and Wales Registered
No: OC379945
We are Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulations Authority (SRA No 590579)