This is an old chestnut and in many cases the claim wins as employers do not keep records - I recently looked at a claim from ~1978 and the legal people advised that we abandon fighting and give the claimant a thousand as it would cost less to pay than to try to defend. The claimant was happy

I'm fortunate in that position Bob as our survey records go back to the early 70s. My issue is with the time wasted putting together a defence for these spurious claims. It takes considerable amounts of time that should be used for other things. A recent claim had letters addressed to the claimants last five employers all demanding the same information. This is the real burden on business that should be being addressed.

Chris, There are many sources of noise and not all of them in the workplace. I've seen a claim from an employee with significant threshold shift who, during investigations, turned out to be a mobile DJ. Given that the iPod generation are showing signs of hearing loss at the start of their working life should an employer who does everything reasonable to protect their hearing suffer at a later date? Considering the noise given out by equipment such as mowers, leaf blowers, power washers, chainsaws that are available cheaply for use at home, should an employer compensate for this loss because somebody is a keen gardener? This is about claims being made against reasonable employers which waste time and money and are not justified

I don't know how you can say that Chris, I'm very surprised that you would say that on this forum - very unhelpful. Noise outside work can also induce hearing loss. Examples: recreational music garage hobbies e.g. regularly doing bodywork on cars. Some men bang about in their garage every night with no ear protection travelling to and from work - vehicle and traffic noise. That last one. Travelling to work. I rarely travel in a bus but recently sat in the back of a double decker bus for a half hour journey. Horrendous noise. Thousands of people do this kind of journey every day, twice a day. I've also sat in someone's old car for a similar journey, similar noise.

The only way of managing spurious noise induced hearing loss claims is to undertake a workplace Audiometry testing as part of an occupational health programme. As most employers haven’t done this there are no records to show where (in time) the hearing loss occurred.

I don't disagree with that BUT as I have extensive audiometry records this does not seem to stop the same solicitors putting in claims - despite the fact that they have been unsuccessful in previous cases.

Some excellent responses already to this topic. As forum regulars might recall from a few of my responses to other topics I'm hearing impaired and depend on hearing aids. During my decade with HSE I noticed around 1985 that the hearing in one of my ears wasn't great so had it checked out and confirmed. When I visited noisy premises including paper mills for HSE, I either wore my HSE issue hearing protection or that provided by the employers involved. Even without hearing protection my noise dosage was probably quite limited timewise. Also, I've never liked discos or other noisy pursuits, didn't usually play my records and tapes at high volume, and didn't then have a personal stereo device, so it was extremely unlikely that my one-sided hearing impairment was caused by noise induced hearing loss, occupational or otherwise. Almost 10 years ago the hearing in my other good ear suddenly deteriorated, literally overnight. At first I thought it was because of excess ear wax - until my GP had a look and said both ears were clear. After that I had various scans and tests but no diagnosis of likely cause other than a suggestion of unspecified disease. As I've also got tinnitus and have experienced intermittent problems with dizziness the consultant who saw me in 1985 might have been right with his suggestion regarding a mild version of Meniere's Disease. That's more than enough about me to make the point that not all cases of hearing loss/impairment are caused by over-exposure to noise. On a wider scale it would be interesting to know what proportion of cases can be attributed to occupational noise, non-occupational noise (e.g. discos, including semi-occupational 'moonlighting' as a disc jockey), specific disease and non-specific disease. Also, bear in mind that a proportion of middle aged people start to experience some reduction in their hearing with no specific cause other than general age-related deterioration. No doubt the people who make cold calls about noise induced hearing loss are exploiting this latter aspect to a greater or lesser extent as well as the fact that it is usually cheaper for employers and past employers to settle up, especially if they don't have comprehensive audiometry records which can be used to defend aganst such claims. As such people probably get a good percentage of whatever money is paid in settled cases, the word "parasites" tends to spring to mind!

Just to throw a spanner in the works, not all healing loss is noise induced ;-) Des

Healing loss - I know hearing is affected by age but tests do distinguish between them. Try to find a chart on the web and see the difference.

I have never come across this tactic - thank heavens. “My opinion is if you have noise induced hearing loss then your employer, or previous employer owes you some dosh. It's never enough to retire on but may get you a holiday“. Isn’t this sort of comment as utterly depressing (especially coming from an IOSH member) as the insidious way that these speculative claims companies have infiltrated our society? I have NO problem with people making claims for personal injury where it is reasonably clear that some has been negligent, but increasingly it appears that claims are being made solely as the means of getting some extra ‘dosh’, with little consideration as to genuine negligence and more emphasis on the defendant being unable to mount a robust defence. I heartily agree with the majority of posts here. The causes of NIHL can be difficult (almost impossible) in some cases to pinpoint and I suspect that many employers probably have ended up paying out for people to have a holiday etc even though there is a reasonable chance that they aren’t responsible for the hearing loss in the first place. I was working with one of our EHO’s some years ago with a local youth club when the craze for monster speakers and loud music in cars was emerging, and the SPLs and projected exposures that we were recording were way in excess of the action levels under the 85 regs. One wonders how an employer might reasonably argue that a persons outside activities, use of ipods etc may have caused the hearing loss. They are for the main part an easy target for both speculative claims companies and those who will have little conscience in making a claim that they know to be spurious, or in some cases completely untrue, merely to grab some ‘dosh’, regardless of whether there has been negligence or not. I do rather despair at times.

Chris, The regulations aren't just there to protect employees and it's disappointing to read your comments which give the impression that you consider the employer has an endless pit of money to pay out spurious compensation claims. You may wish to consider that the reason so many people disagree with you is that you are wrong. Consider this, an employer carries out audiometry tests and notices a number of his employees have threshold shift. His noise surveys indicate no issues, supervision is good and his PPE program is robust in identifying faults and replacing faulty PPE. Is he responsible for the hearing loss and should he pay out on the claims his employees make?

Surprised me a bit there Chris :) The problem is that there is no redress against the no win no fee companies that put in multiple claims in the hope that the employers insurance will pay out on a nuisance claim and therefore guarantee them a hefty fee. The only thing the audimetry test indicates is threshold shift not what caused it but the assumption is that it is employers. Where there is no evidence of noise surveys, PPE etc. (often due to elapsed time) solicitors take this as evidence of guilt?!? I think the loftsted report indicates the right way forward but, as said earlier, there will be no appetite for change from the law makers. Perhaps another route would be recovery of all costs (including evidence gathering) recovered from the solicitors in the event of a claim failing.

Your required to keep health surveillance records, some for extent of employment, some for 50 years (radiation, asbestos, etc). Records of inspections, audits etc are often only kept only 3-5 years until superseded by a new one and to cover compensation claims. The current claims culture exploits this and uses it to provide enough doubt as to whether the controls were ever in place.

I can see where Chris is coming from. Most of the practitioners on this forum work for larger, more enlightened companies where noise issues are managed with robust PPE programmes and health surveillance. In my experience, those companies are the exception, not the norm. Most firms either do not realise there is an issue or are lax in enforcing their control measures. Health surveillance and extensive record keeping are seen as being too costly and too time consuming. I'm thinking of small metal working industries, saw mills, manufacturing plants etc with fewer than 20 employees when I make these comments. The Noise at Work regs impose a duty on the employer, if they have not met this duty and the employee can prove NIHL then the employer is wide open to a claim and money is likely to change hands. John J - your employer sounds like an insurer's dream. Give us the evidence and we will robustly defend the claims. Without it, experience has taught us the court will always favour the employee.

quote=Lawlee45239]Not all noise is from work. I've been to night clubs, where the music left my ears ringing for days, I've been to the airport, I've driven a tractor, i've played sport in national areans.....