Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-nr592 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-11T01:55:55.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Medicolegal significance of asymmetrical hearing loss in cases of industrial noise exposure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2010

S V Fernandes  and
C M Fernandes
S V Fernandes*
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
C M Fernandes
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Sylvester Valentine Fernandes, 22 Kelton Street, Cardiff, NSW, Australia2285. Fax: +61 249 546881 E-mail: mdsfe@mail.newcastle.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

In Australia, the current guidelines for evaluation of noise-induced hearing loss suggest that, in cases of asymmetrical loss, ‘the worse ear be equated to the better ear’ for purposes of compensation. This study aimed to establish that such a method was prejudicial to the worker (i.e. the plaintiff). In consideration of the legal duty ‘to co-construct the ideas of truth and the ideas of justice in the context of legal proceedings’, our study objectives were (1) to document the incidence of asymmetrical hearing loss in compensation cases seen in our practice, and (2) to provide a reasoned argument for inclusion of the same for compensation considerations.

Study design:

Open, retrospective, clinical study.

Setting:

Australian plaintiffs with asymmetrical hearing loss (who comprise a significant percentage of industrial hearing loss legal cases) may be excluded from full consideration of their hearing loss as a result of the current guidelines. In contrast to the process of medical diagnosis and treatment, it appeared that the application of accepted probability standards within the legal process may permit inclusion of such clients' hearing loss in compensation considerations.

Methods:

This study included 208 consecutive clients referred by legal practitioners for assessment of hearing loss for compensation purposes.

Results and conclusion:

A total of 22.6 per cent of clients (47 of 208) had asymmetrical hearing loss, with the left side having the greater loss in 60 per cent of cases. We believe that asymmetrical hearing loss should be included in compensation considerations, both on medical and legal grounds.

Keywords

Hearing LossNoise Induced Hearing LossMedico-legalAustralia

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 124 , Issue 10 , October 2010 , pp. 1051 - 1055
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1Hinchcliffe, R. Occupational noise-induced hearing loss. Proc R Soc Med 1967;60:1111–7Google ScholarPubMed
2Bacon, FL. Sylva Sylvarum: or a Natural History. London: W Rawley, 1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Wittmaack, K. Damage of the hearing due to noise [in German]. Z Ohrenheilk 1907;54:37–80Google Scholar
4Davis, H, Morgan, CT, Hawkins, JE Jr, Galambos, R, Smith, FW. Temporary deafness following exposure to loud tones and noise. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1950;88:1–56Google ScholarPubMed
5Hinchcliffe, R, Śliwinska-Kowalska, M. Introduction. Audiological Medicine 2007;5:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Consensus Conference. Noise and hearing loss. JAMA 1990;263:3185–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Dobie, RA. A method for allocation of hearing handicap. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990;103:733–9Google ScholarPubMed
8Mathur, MN, Roland, PS. Inner ear, noise-induced hearing loss. eMedicine Journal 2006;7 http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/857813-overview [Accessed on 8 May 2010]Google Scholar
9Dufresne, RM, Alleyne, BC, Reesal, MR. Asymmetric hearing loss in truck drivers. Ear Hear 1988;9:41–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Heydon, JA in Makita (Australia) Pty Limited v Sprowles (2001) 52NSWLR 705Google Scholar
11Cohen, NB. The gatekeeping role in civil litigation and the abdication of legal values in favor of scientific values. 33 Seton Hall L Rev 943 2002–2003;943–65Google Scholar
12Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc 113 S Ct 2786 (1993)Google Scholar
13Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 3B(1)(f)Google Scholar
14Luntz, H. Assessment of Damages for Personal Injury and Death. Sydney: Butterworths, 2002;169–74Google Scholar
15Nader v Urban Transit Authority (21985) 2 NSWLR 501Google Scholar
16Negretto v Sayers [1963] SASR 313Google Scholar
17Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd [1963] 3 All ER 1006Google Scholar
18Sabini, P, Sclafani, A. Efficacy of serologic testing in asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;122:469–76Google ScholarPubMed
19Hendrix, RA, Dedio, RM, Sclafani, AP. The use of diagnostic testing in asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990;103:593–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Lutman, ME, Coles, RR. Asymmetric sensorineural hearing thresholds in the non-noise-exposed UK population: a retrospective analysis. Clin Otolaryngol 2009;34:316–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Barrs, DM, Althoff, LK, Krueger, WW, Olsson, JE. Work-related, noise-induced hearing loss: evaluation including evoked potential audiometry. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994;110:177–84CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Segal, N, Shkolnik, M, Kochba, A, Segal, A, Kraus, M. Asymmetric hearing loss in a random population of patients with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2007;116:7–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Chung, DY, Willson, GN, Gannon, RP. Lateral differences in susceptibility to noise damage. Audiology 1983;22:199–205CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Alberti, PW, Symons, F, Hyde, ML. Occupational hearing loss. Acta Otolaryngol 1979;87:255–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Noise-induced hearing loss. In: http://www.acoem.org/guidelines.aspx?id=846 [5 January 2010]Google Scholar
26International Standards Organisation 1999.2 (1989) Cited in Consensus Conference. Noise and hearing loss. JAMA 1990;263:3187Google Scholar
27Boettcher, FA, Henderson, D, Gratton, MA, Danielson, RW, Byrne, CD. Synergistic interactions of noise and other ototraumatic agents. Ear Hear 1987;8:192–212CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Hardy, M, Crowe, SJ. Early asymptomatic acoustic tumor: report of six cases. Arch Surg 1936;32:292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Leonard, ML, Talbot, JR. Asymptomatic acoustic neurilemmoma. Arch Otolaryngol 1970;91:117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Morrison, AW. Management of Sensorineural Deafness. London: Butterworths, 1975Google Scholar
31Karjalainen, S, Nuutinen, J, Neittaanmäki, H, Naukkarinen, A, Asikainen, R. The incidence of acoustic neuroma in autopsy material. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1984;240:91–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Jasanoff, S. Science at the Bar. Law, Science and Technology in America. Cambridge, Massuchusetts: Harvard University Press, 1995;xivCrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Australian Society of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery. Guidelines for Evaluation of Occupational Noise Induced Hearing Loss (ONIHL) of Gradual Process 2009, 2nd edn. 2009 http://www.asohns.org.au/members_section/practice-guidelines-and-recommendations/Guidelines%20for%20Evaluating%20ONIHL%20of%20Gradual%20Process%202nd%20Edition.pdf/view?searchterm=noise [Accessed 8 May 2010]Google Scholar