NOISE INDUCED BC HEARING LOSS - BC Legal - Home · Page 3 1. 2. 3. NIHL PSLA Ready Reckoner...

NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSSTHE QUANTUM GUIDE

BC LEGALB R I N G I N G C L A R I T Y

BC

NIHL PSLA Ready Reckoner

NIHL (dB) TINNITUS AGE

Up to 30 31‐35 36‐40 41‐45 46‐50 51‐55 56‐60 61‐65 66‐70 71+

SLIGHT (up to 15 dB)

None £5,000 £4,845 £4,690 £4,535 £4,380 £4,225 £4,070 £3,915 £3,760 £3,600

Slight/occasional

£9,000 £8,590 £8,180 £7,770 £7,360 £6,950 £6,540 £6,130 £5,720 £5,300

Mild £9,600 £9,425 £9,250 £9,075 £8,900 £8,725 £8,550 £8,375 £8,200 £8,000

Moderate £20,250 £19,070 £17,890 £16,710 £15,530 £14,350 £13,170 £11,990 £10,810 £9,600

Severe £32,500 £31,250 £30,000 £28,750 £27,500 £26,250 £25,000 £23,750 £22,500 £21,250

SOME (16 to 30 dB)

None £7,000 £6,845 £6,690 £6,535 £6,380 £6,225 £6,070 £5,915 £5,760 £5,600

Slight/occasional

£10,000 £9,700 £9,400 £9,100 £8,800 £8,500 £8,200 £7,900 £7,600 £7,300

Mild £10,600 £10,425 £10,250 £10,075 £9,900 £9,725 £9,550 £9,375 £9,2000 £9,000

Moderate £21,250 £20,070 £18,890 £17,710 £16,530 £15,350 £14,170 £12,990 £11,810 £10,600

Severe £32,500 £32,260 £30,220 £29,080 £27,940 £26,800 £25,550 £24,520 £23,380 £22,250

MODERATE (31 to 45 dB)

None £16,250 £15,620 £14,990 £14,360 £13,730 £13,100 £12,470 £11,840 £11,210 £10,600

Slight/occasional

£17,920 £17,145 £16,370 £15,595 £14,820 £14,045 £13,270 £12,495 £11,720 £10,940

Mild £19,585 £18,660 £17,735 £16,810 £15,885 £14,960 £14,035 £13,110 £12,185 £11,270

Moderate £21,250 £20,180 £19,110 £18,040 £16,970 £15,900 £14,830 £13,760 £12,690 £11,600

Severe £32,500 £31,470 £30,440 £29,410 £28,380 £27,350 £26,320 £25,290 £24,260 £23,250

SEVERE (46 +)

None £21,250 £20,695 £20,140 £19,585 £19,030 £18,475 £17,920 £17,365 £16,810 £16,250

Slight/occasional

£24,070 £23,425 £22,780 £22,135 £21,490 £20,845 £20,200 £19,555 £18,910 £18,250

Mild £26,880 £26,145 £25,410 £24,675 £23,940 £23,205 £22,470 £21,735 £21,000 £20,250

Moderate £29,690 £28,865 £28,040 £27,215 £26,390 £25,565 £24,740 £23,915 £23,090 £22,250

Severe £32,500 £31,585 £30,670 £29,755 £28,840 £27,925 £27,010 £26,095 £25,180] £24,250

1.

2.

3.

NIHL PSLA Ready ReckonerExplanatory Notes:

Figures in red bold are the lower and upper bracket of the 11th 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 £3,600 (updated to May 2013).

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 £3,600 is therefore placed in the top right hand corner of the table (claimants aged 70+ / limited hearing loss and no tinnitus).

Conversely, the upper bracket figure of £32,500 occupies the bottom left hand side of the table (claimants aged up to 30 with severe hearing loss and severe tinnitus).

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.

4.

Page 3

1.

2.

3.

Appendix 1: AAHL according to ISO 7029Appendix 2: Ready Reckoner Table of awards by age and severity of symptomsAppendix 3: PSLA awards by award sizeAppendix 4: PSLA awards by age

Introduction

The Judicial College Guidelines

Common law awards

4. Can NIHL be de minimis?

5. Hearing aid claims

2.1 The 11th Edition2.2 Predicting the 12th Edition

Page 4

IntroductionNIHL is a dose related and divisible disease

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.

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.

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).

1.1

1.2

1.3

British Tinnitus Association, ‘All About Tinnitus’ <http://www.tinnitus.org.uk/all-about-tinnitus> accessed 12 June 2013.

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

1

2

2

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, 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 anything from 23.3% to 87.5%.

1.4

1.

1.5 There are various classifications of tinnitus. The British Association of Otolaryngologists suggests there are five categories of tinnitus: 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. 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.

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.

3

1.6

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.

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.

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 May 2013. The Ready Reckoner Table of damages is based both on these updated figures and the 11th edition of the JC Guidelines.

1.7

3

The Judicial College Guidelines

2.1.1 The Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases, 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.

NIHL awards fall within Chapter 4, section (B)(d) of the Guidelines, which states:

Chapter 4(B)(d) Partial Hearing Loss or/and TinnitusThis 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.

(i) Severe tinnitus and hearing loss £21,250-£32,500

(ii) Moderate tinnitus and hearing loss or moderate to severe tinnitus or hearing loss alone.

£10,600 to £21,250

(iii) Mild tinnitus with some hearing loss. £9,000 to £10,600

(iv) Slight or occasional tinnitus with slight hearing loss £5,300 to £9,000

(v) Slight hearing loss without tinnitus or slight tinnitus without hearing loss.

Up to £5,000

The 11th Edition

2.1.2

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 changed in each successive edition (since the 9th edition) in accordance with inflation. In the current (11th) edition of the guidelines category (v) was added. Previously only categories (i) to (iv) existed.

The addition of this 5th category removes 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.

2.1.3

2.1.4

Judicial College, Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases (11th edition, OUP 2012).

4

4

2.

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:

The claimant is a male aged 50 with hearing thresholds over 1, 2 and 3 kHz as follows:

Example: Assessing the NIHL

FREQUENCY HEARING LOSS dB

RIGHT LEFT1 KHZ 20 102 KHZ 20 103 KHZ 20 10TOTAL 60 30AVERAGE 20 10

Assessing the NIHL

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.

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

1.

2.

3.

2.1.6 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’).

2.1.7 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.

GRADE OF IMPAIRMENT AVERAGE LOSS 0.5,1,2,4 kHz0 (No impairment) 25 dBHL or less (better ear)

1 (Slight impairment) 26-40 dBHL (better ear)2 (Moderate impairment) 41-60 dBHL (better ear)

3 (Severe impairment) 61-80 dBHL (better ear)4 (Profound impairment) 81 dBHL+ (better ear)

2.1.8

Description of loss / disability Level of NIHL lossJC Guidelines WHO

Slight 0 Up to 15 dBSome 1 16-30 dB

Moderate 2 31-50 dBSevere 3/4 51 dB+

2.1.9 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.

(i) Severe tinnitus and any noise induced hearing loss£21,250-£32,500

(ii) Moderate tinnitus andslight-some noise induced hearing loss of up to 30 dB or moderate to severe tinnitus or moderate–se-

vere noise induced hearing loss alone exceeding 31 dB£10,600 to £21,250

(iii) Mild tinnitus with some noise induced hearing loss of between 16-30 dB. £9,000 to £10,600

(iv) Slight or occasional tinnitus with slight noise induced hearing loss of up to 15 dB

£5,300 to £9,000

(v) Slight noise induced hearing loss of up to 15 dB without tin-nitus or slight tinnitus without hearing loss.

Up to £5,000

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:

Table: The ‘JC / BC’ Guidelines

Table: WHO classification of hearing loss / disability

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 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.

Guidelines or instructions?

Predicting the 12th Edition

2.2.1 A 12th edition of the Judicial College Guidelines is expected to become available in October 2013. The deafness figures presented in the 12th edition will reflect inflationary uplift, any new decisions and the 10% uplift in general damages effective from 1 April following the decision in Simmons v Castle. The Guidelines will provide two sets of figures, one with the 10% uplift and one without.

This section will analyse changes in the previous editions of the JC guidelines to make predictions for guidelines in the 12th edition. 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.

The following table shows how the figures have changed with each edition:

2.2.2

2.2.3

Judicial College Guidelines Edition Category (i) Upper Bracket Category (iv) Lower Bracket 9th (2008) £29,000 £4,750

10th (2010) £30,000 £4,85011th (2012) £32,500 £5,300

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.

[2007] EWHC 2267 (QB) <http://www.lawtel.com/UK/FullText/AC0115064QBD.pdf> accessed 31 May 2013.

For more information see: BC Legal (n 6) 4.

[2012] EWCA Civ 1288 <http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1288.html&query=SIMMONS+and+V+and+CASTLE&method=boolean> accessed 3 June 2013.

5 6

7

8

5

6

7

8

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:

£35,000

£30,000

£25,000

£20,000

£15,000

£10,000

£5,000

£0

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 average percentage change. It shows that the upper bracket has risen at a slightly faster rate than the lower bracket on average:

9th (2008) 10th (2010) 1th(2012)

Judicial College Guidelines Edition Upper Bracket Lower Bracket

2.2.5

Judicial College Guidelines Edition Category (i) Upper Bracket % Change

Category (iv) Lower Bracket % Change

9th (2008) £29,000 £4,75010th (2010) 3.45% 2.11%11th (2012) 8.33% 9.28%

Average % change by edition 5.89% 5.70%

Since the 9th edition in 2008 the upper bracket has increased by 12.07%. Meanwhile, the lower bracket has increased by 11.58%.

2.2.6

The following tables provide predicted values for the 12th edition upper and lower brackets, using the overall average percentage change for the upper and lower brackets from previous editions. The first provides the values without the 10% uplift in general damages; the second provides values with the 10% uplift in general damages:values without the 10% uplift in general damages; the second provides values with the 10% uplift in general damages:

2.2.7

Judicial College Guidelines (12th edition) (2013)

Predicted Lower Bracket Predicted Upper Bracket

Severe tinnitus and hearing loss. £22,461.25 £34,414.25

Moderate tinnitus and hearing loss or moderate to severe tinnitus or

hearing loss alone.£11,204.20 £22,501.63

Mild tinnitus with some hearing loss. £9,513.00 £11,224.34

Slight or occasional tinnitus with slight hearing loss.

£5,602.10 £9,530.10

Slight hearing loss without tinnitus or slight tinnitus without hearing loss.

Up to £5294.5

Judicial College Guidelines (12th edition) (2013)

Predicted Lower Bracket with 10% Uplift

Predicted Upper Bracket with 10% Uplift

Severe tinnitus and hearing loss. £24,707.38 £37,855.68

Moderate tinnitus and hearing loss or moderate to severe tinnitus or

hearing loss alone.£12,324.62 £24,751.79

Mild tinnitus with some hearing loss. £10,464.30 £12,346.77

Slight or occasional tinnitus with slight hearing loss.

£6,162.31 £10,483.11

Slight hearing loss without tinnitus or slight tinnitus without hearing loss.

Up to £5823.95

Common Law Awards

3.1 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:

6

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.

3.2

3.3

3.4

http://www.bc-legal.co.uk/index.php/knowledge-centre.html

3.

Pag

e 14

READY RECKONER TABLE: AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS


BC

Noise Induced Hearing Loss – The Quantum Guide June 2013

15 | P a g e

READY RECKONER TABLE: AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS


Up to 30

31‐35 36‐40 41‐45 46‐50 51‐55 56‐60 61‐65 66‐70 71+

Slight (up to 15 dB)

None

£5,000 £4,845 £4,690

[£6,777.99]

£4,535

[£6,595.65 £8,259.96]

£4,380

[£3,685.35]

£4,225

[£5,944.07]

£4,070 £3,915 £3,760 £3,600

[£5,169.20]

Slight/ occasional

£9,000 £8,590 £8,180 £7,770 £7,360

[£6,142.29 £11,536.78]

£6,950 £6,540 £6,130 £5,720 £5,300

Mild

£9,600 £9,425 £9,250

[£7,837.18]

£9,075

[£6,322.88 £8,165.57 £8,705.17]

£8,900

[£8,986.06]

£8,725

[£5,294.71 £5,937.43 £7,018.43 £8,430.51]

£8,550

[£2,114.8 £10,116.61]

£8,375

[£9,653.57]

£8,200 £8,000

Moderate

£20,250

[£10,982.83]

£19,070 £17,890 £16,710 £15,530

[£12,697.41 £12,510.06]

£14,350 £13,170

[£10,842.05 £15,184.86]

£11,990 £10,810

[£14,178.07]

£9,600

Severe £32,500 £31,250 £30,000 £28,750 £27,500 £26,250 £25,000 £23,750 £22,500 £21,250

Some (16 to 30 dB)

None

£7,000 £6,845 £6,690

[£8,542.20]

£6,535

[£6,468.14]

£6,380

[£5,874.8 £8,940.2]

£6,225

[£6,155.94 £7,314.71 £10,472.21]

£6,070 £5,915

[£2,439.08 £8,307.42]

£5,760 £5,600

Slight/ occasional

£10,000 £9,700 £9,400 £9,100 £8,800

[£6,092.39 £6,142.29 £7,004.47 £7,615.49]

£8,500 £8,200

[£6,728.48]

£7,900 £7,600 £7,300

Mild

£10,600

[£5,961.99]

£10,425

[£8,256.97]

£10,250 £10,075 £9,900

[£9,591.05 £9,695.08]

£9,725

[£1,721.7 £6,161.49 £7,841.89 £9,901.79

£9,550

[£6,200.28 £8,268.24]

£9,375

[£7,576.72 £7,841.89 £9,522.3

£10,858.91

£9,2000 £9,000

[£5,133.74]


16 | P a g e


Up to 30

31‐35 36‐40 41‐45 46‐50 51‐55 56‐60 61‐65 66‐70 71+

£10,734.06] £12,758.88]

Moderate

£21,250 £20,070 £18,890 £17,710 £16,530

[£10,791.39 £12,645.76 £13,543.91 £18,453.98]

£15,350

[£3,110.05 £13,253.61 £16,246.36 £17,181.1 £25,352.31]

£14,170

[£10,116.61]

£12,990

[£8,130.25]

£11,810

[£10,207.48]

£10,600

Severe

£32,500 £32,260

[£32,103.82]

£30,220 £29,080 £27,940 £26,800

[£19,908.78 £26,159.13]

£25,550

[£19,482.7 £30,471.19

]

£24,520 £23,380 £22,250

Moderate (31 to 45 dB)

None

£16,250 £15,620 £14,990 £14,360 £13,730 £13,100

[£12,487.03 £19,204.41]

£12,470

[£7,274.43 £15,629.93]

£11,840

[£5,110.27 £5,431.92 £6,083.31]

£11,210

[£7,831.14]

£10,600

Slight/occasional

£17,920 £17,145 £16,370 £15,595 £14,820 £14,045 £13,270 £12,495 £11,720 £10,940

Mild

£19,585 £18,660

[£12,285.34]

£17,735 £16,810 £15,885 £14,960

[£8,514.05 £8,921.97 £11,553.51]

£14,035 £13,110

[£8,471.60]

£12,185 £11,270

Moderate £21,250

[£15,860.97]

£20,180 £19,110 £18,040

[£14,614.84]

£16,970 £15,900

[£18,053.14]

£14,830 £13,760 £12,690 £11,600

Severe £32,500 £31,470 £30,440 £29,410 £28,380 £27,350 £26,320 £25,290 £24,260 £23,250

Severe (46 +)

None £21,250 £20,695 £20,140 £19,585 £19,030

[£14,884.24]

£18,475 £17,920 £17,365

[£3,873.83]

£16,810

[£16,720.48]

£16,250

Slight/occasional

£24,070 £23,425 £22,780 £22,135 £21,490 £20,845 £20,200 £19,555 £18,910 £18,250

Mild

£26,880 £26,145 £25,410 £24,675 £23,940 £23,205 £22,470 £21,735

[£3,586.88 £21,117.95]

£21,000 £20,250


17 | P a g e


Up to 30

31‐35 36‐40 41‐45 46‐50 51‐55 56‐60 61‐65 66‐70 71+

Moderate £29,690 £28,865 £28,040 £27,215 £26,390 £25,565 £24,740 £23,915

[£22,892.01]

£23,090 £22,250

Severe £32,500 £31,585 £30,670 £29,755

[£21,197.76]

£28,840 £27,925 £27,010 £26,095

[£52,559.47]

£25,180

[£14,397]

£24,250

Explanatory Notes: 1. Figures in red bold are the lower and upper bracket of the 11th 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 £3,600 (updated to May 2013).

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 £3,600 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 £32,500 occupies the bottom left hand side of the table (claimants aged up to 30 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 (in square brackets 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. 8. Italicised awards represent indicated awards that would have been made had liability been established. 9. Where awards significantly cover two brackets they appear in both brackets. 10. Old authorities tended to award less than more current awards. They are therefore often anomalously low. 11. Some actual awards appear entirely anomalous, without explanation. There is sometimes little consistency between awards.

Can NIHL be de minimis?

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.

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.

4.1

4.2

[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+quantum&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.html&query=Nottinghamshire+and+Derbyshire+and+Deafness+and+Litigation&method=boole

9

10

De minimis principles

Human hearing and speech

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.

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 recognition.

4.3

4.4

De minimis judgments

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. 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.

4.5

11

9

10

11

4.

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, 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, Lord 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 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. 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. 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.

4.6

4.7

Johnston v NEI International Combustion [2007] UKHL 39 <http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/39.html&query=johnston+and+nei&method=boolean> accessed 30 May 2013.

[2011] UKSC 10 <http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/10.html&query=sienkiewicz&method=boolean> accessed 30 May 2013.

Pleural Plaques Test Litigation, n 13, [19] (Lord Hoffmann).

(Cardiff County Court, 3 August 2012).

King, Coles, Lutman & Robinson, Assessment of Hearing Disability: Guidelines for Medicolegal

4.8

4.9

12

13

14

15

16

12

13

14

15

16

Hughes demonstrates that de minimis defences can succeed in NIHL claims. The appropriate selection criteria for running a successful de minimis defence are:

4.101

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

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).

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 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.

4.11

See para 4.5.17

17

Success in running a de minimis defence

HEARING AID CLAIMS?

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.

The point at which loss becomes disability is known as the ‘low fence threshold’. Action on Hearing Loss categorise hearing loss and disability as follows :

When does a hearing loss give rise to disability

5.2

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).

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. Age related loss is the single biggest cause of hearing loss-about 70% of adults over the age of 70 and 40% of those aged over 50 are affected.

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.

5.3

5.4

Formerly the RNID

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.

Action on Hearing Loss, ‘Statistics’ <http://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/your-hearing/about-deafness-and-hearing-loss/statistics.aspx> accessed 12 June 2013.

Action on Hearing Loss, ‘Hearing Matters’ 22 <http://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/supporting-you/policy-research-and-influencing/research/hearing-matters.aspx> accessed 12 June 2013.

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.

18

19

20

21

22

18

19

20

21

22

Category Quietest sounds heard Disability

Mild 25-39 dBSome 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+

5.

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 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 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 people with hearing loss. Other studies suggest a figure of 40 dB .

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.

Clinical need for aids

5.6

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.

Noise-induced hearing loss and hearing aids requirement, Acta Otorhinolarngologica Italica 2008; 28: 200-205, C. Giordano et al.

Preconceptions and expectations of older adults about getting hearing aids. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2011;4:1-8, Jorunn Solheim.

Action on Hearing Loss, ‘Types of Hearing Aids’ <http://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/your-hearing/need-hearing-aids/types-of-hearing-aids.aspx> accessed 12 June 2013.

Types of hearing aid

5.7 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.

Analogue or digital

23

24

25

26

23

24

25

26

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.

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.

Behind the ear (BTE) hearing aids

5.9

Receiver in the ear (RITE) hearing aids 5.10 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.

5.11

In the ear (ITE) hearing aids5.12 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 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 Disadvantages

BTE • 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.

• More visible, albeit often covered with average length hair.

RITE • Smaller than BTE.• The absence of an ear mould makes them easier to fit.

• Can still require an earmould in cases of severe loss.

ITE • Suitable for mild to severe hearing loss.• Easy to insert and re move.

• 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.

CIC • Even smaller than ITE aids.• Least visible.

• Not suitable for severe loss.• Not suitable for those suffering frequent ear infections.• Prone to damage by earwax

Body worn • Provide significant amplifi cation.• Easy to use.

• More visible.

Issues in claims for hearing aids

Unreported (Southampton County Court, 18th March 2008) [91] <http://www.lawtel.com/UK/FullText/AC0117517CC(Southampton).pdf> accessed 12 June 2013.

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).

Preference for one or two hearing aids among adult patients, Ear Hear.2011 Mar-Apr; 32(2):181-197, Robyn Cox et al.

5.16 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’.

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 .

Necessity and acceleration

5.17

5.18

5.19

One ear or both ears?

5.20 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 substantial proportion of people prefer to use only 1 hearing aid.

27

27

28

28

29

29

Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington AHA [1980] AC 174; Sowden v Lodge [2005] 1 WLR 2129

[2007] EWHC 2996 (QB).

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 and Islington AHAand Sowden v Lodge).

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 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?

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.

Will the cost be incurred and what is reasonable?

5.22

5.23

30

31

30

31

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.

1.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].

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.

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.

Example 1:

Assess the claimant’s life expectancy

2.

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].

Assess whether there is an earlier ‘cut off’ for the aids caused by the NIHL

3.

The period over which the aids will be required is 21 years-between ages 65-86.

What is the period over which the aids will be required (i.e. whichever is less of the above periods 1 or 2)?

4.

Aids will be required initially and then at every 5 years. The regime for initial supply and replacement is as follows:

• Initial aid-age 65 • 1st replacement-age 70 • 2nd replacement-age 75 • 3rd replacement-age 80 • 4th replacement-age 85

How often will the aids need replacing during the above period

5.• Aids £750• Battery / servicing / maintenance £100

What are the multiplicands?

32

32

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.

7. Total claim

6.

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.

What are the mutlipliers?

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

1.As example 1-to age 86

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

Example 2:

Assess the claimant’s life expectancy

2.

The aids would be required in any event by age 78

Assess whether there is an earlier ‘cut off’ for the aids caused by the NIHL

3.

13 years

What is the period over which the aids will be required (whichever is less of the above periods 1 or 2)

4.Aids will be required initially and then at every 5 years. The regime for initial supply and replacement is as follows:

• Initial aid-age 65 • 1st replacement-age 70 • 2nd replacement-age 75

How often will the aids need replacing during the above period

5.• Aids £750• Battery / servicing / maintenance £100

What are the multiplicands?

6.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

What are the mutlipliers?

7. Total claim

Initial purchase cost of aids £750Replacement costs every 5 years £750 x 1.60=£1200Future annual costs (battery etc.) £100 x 10.62=£1062

Total £3,012

Appendices


BC

Page 30

Appendix 1: AAHL according to ISO 7029


BC

Page 31


32 | P a g e

APPENDIX 1: AAHL ACCORDING TO ISO 7029 (50th PERCENTILE)

AGE MALE FEMALE 30 1.66 31 1.66 1.66 32 1.66 1.66 33 1.66 1.66 34 1.66 1.66 35 1.66 1.66 36 1.66 1.66 37 3.33 1.66 38 3.33 1.66 39 3.33 3.33 40 3.33 3.33 41 3.33 3.33 42 5 3.33 43 5 3.33 44 5 3.33 45 5 5 46 6.66 5 47 6.66 5 48 6.66 5 49 6.66 5 50 8.33 6.66 51 8.33 6.66 52 8.33 6.66 53 10 6.66 54 10 8.33 55 10 8.33 56 10 8.33 57 11.66 8.33 58 11.66 10 59 11.66 10 60 13.33 10 61 13.33 10 62 15 11.66 63 15 11.66 64 16.66 11.66 65 16.66 13.33 66 16.66 13.33 67 18.33 13.33 68 18.33 15 69 20 15 70 20 15 71 21.66 16.66 72 21.66 16.66 73 23.33 18.33 74 23.33 18.33 75 25 18.33 76 25 20 77 26.66 20 78 26.66 21.66 79 28.33 21.66 80 28.33 21.66

Appendix 2: Ready Reckoner Table of awards by age and severity of symptoms


BC


34 | P a g e

APPENDIX 2: READY RECKONER TABLE OF AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS


Up to 30

31‐35 36‐40 41‐45 46‐50 51‐55 56‐60 61‐65 66‐70 71+

Slight (up to 15

dB)

None

£5,000 £4,845 £4,690

[£6,777.99]

£4,535

[£6,595.65 £8,259.96]

£4,380

[£3,685.35]

£4,225

[£5,944.07]

£4,070 £3,915 £3,760 £3,600

[£5,169.20]

Slight/ occasional

£9,000 £8,590 £8,180 £7,770 £7,360

[£6,142.29 £11,536.78]

£6,950 £6,540 £6,130 £5,720 £5,300

Mild

£9,600 £9,425 £9,250

[£7,837.18]

£9,075

[£6,322.88 £8,165.57 £8,705.17]

£8,900

[£8,986.06]

£8,725

[£5,294.71 £5,937.43 £7,018.43 £8,430.51]

£8,550

[£2,114.8 £10,116.61]

£8,375

[£9,653.57]

£8,200 £8,000

Moderate

£20,250

[£10,982.83]

£19,070 £17,890 £16,710 £15,530

[£12,697.41 £12,510.06]

£14,350 £13,170

[£10,842.05 £15,184.86]

£11,990 £10,810

[£14,178.07]

£9,600

Severe £32,500 £31,250 £30,000 £28,750 £27,500 £26,250 £25,000 £23,750 £22,500 £21,250

Some (16 to 30

dB)

None

£7,000 £6,845 £6,690

[£8,542.20]

£6,535

[£6,468.14]

£6,380

[£5,874.8 £8,940.2]

£6,225

[£6,155.94 £7,314.71 £10,472.21]

£6,070 £5,915

[£2,439.08 £8,307.42]

£5,760 £5,600

Slight/ occasional

£10,000 £9,700 £9,400 £9,100 £8,800

[£6,092.39 £6,142.29 £7,004.47 £7,615.49]

£8,500 £8,200

[£6,728.48]

£7,900 £7,600 £7,300

Mild £10,600

[£5,961.99]

£10,425

[£8,256.97]

£10,250 £10,075 £9,900

[£9,591.05

£9,725

[£1,721.7

£9,550

[£6,200.28

£9,375

[£7,576.72

£9,2000 £9,000

[£5,133.74]


35 | P a g e


Up to 30

31‐35 36‐40 41‐45 46‐50 51‐55 56‐60 61‐65 66‐70 71+

£9,695.08] £6,161.49 £7,841.89 £9,901.79 £10,734.06]

£8,268.24] £7,841.89 £9,522.3 £10,858.91 £12,758.88]

Moderate

£21,250 £20,070 £18,890 £17,710 £16,530

[£10,791.39 £12,645.76 £13,543.91 £18,453.98]

£15,350

[£3,110.05 £13,253.61 £16,246.36 £17,181.1 £25,352.31]

£14,170

[£10,116.61]

£12,990

[£8,130.25]

£11,810

[£10,207.48]

£10,600

Severe

£32,500 £32,260

[£32,103.82]

£30,220 £29,080 £27,940 £26,800

[£19,908.78 £26,159.13]

£25,550

[£19,482.7 £30,471.19

]

£24,520 £23,380 £22,250

Moderate (31 to 45

dB)

None

£16,250 £15,620 £14,990 £14,360 £13,730 £13,100

[£12,487.03 £19,204.41]

£12,470

[£7,274.43 £15,629.93]

£11,840

[£5,110.27 £5,431.92 £6,083.31]

£11,210

[£7,831.14]

£10,600

Slight/ occasional

£17,920 £17,145 £16,370 £15,595 £14,820 £14,045 £13,270 £12,495 £11,720 £10,940

Mild

£19,585 £18,660

[£12,285.34]

£17,735 £16,810 £15,885 £14,960

[£8,514.05 £8,921.97 £11,553.51]

£14,035 £13,110

[£8,471.60]

£12,185 £11,270

Moderate £21,250

[£15,860.97]

£20,180 £19,110 £18,040

[£14,614.84]

£16,970 £15,900

[£18,053.14]

£14,830 £13,760 £12,690 £11,600

Severe £32,500 £31,470 £30,440 £29,410 £28,380 £27,350 £26,320 £25,290 £24,260 £23,250

Severe (46 +) None

£21,250 £20,695 £20,140 £19,585 £19,030

[£14,884.24]

£18,475 £17,920 £17,365

[£3,873.83]

£16,810

[£16,720.48]

£16,250


36 | P a g e


Up to 30

31‐35 36‐40 41‐45 46‐50 51‐55 56‐60 61‐65 66‐70 71+

Slight/ occasional

£24,070 £23,425 £22,780 £22,135 £21,490 £20,845 £20,200 £19,555 £18,910 £18,250

Mild

£26,880 £26,145 £25,410 £24,675 £23,940 £23,205 £22,470 £21,735

[£3,586.88 £21,117.95]

£21,000 £20,250

Moderate £29,690 £28,865 £28,040 £27,215 £26,390 £25,565 £24,740 £23,915

[£22,892.01]

£23,090 £22,250

Severe £32,500 £31,585 £30,670 £29,755

[£21,197.76]

£28,840 £27,925 £27,010 £26,095

[£52,559.47]

£25,180

[£14,397]

£24,250

Explanatory Notes:

1. Figures in red bold are the lower and upper bracket of the 11th 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 £3,600 (updated to May 2013).

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 £3,600 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 £32,500 occupies the bottom left hand side of the table (claimants aged up to 30 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 (in square brackets 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. 8. Italicised awards represent indicated awards that would have been made had liability been established. 9. Where awards significantly cover two brackets they appear in both brackets.


37 | P a g e

10. Old authorities tended to award less than more current awards. They are therefore often anomalously low. 11. Some actual awards appear entirely anomalous, without explanation. There is sometimes little consistency between awards.

Appendix 3: PSLA awards by award size


BC


39 | P a g e

APPENDIX 3: PSLA AWARDS BY AWARD SIZE

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE

EXTENT OF NIHL AND WHAT FREQUENCIES.

TINNITUS? AND IF SO THE SEVERITY.

NAME OF CASE AND REFERENCE

£1,721.7 55 NOISE INDUCED HEARING

LOSS OF 23‐30dB. MILD TINNITUS.

WAGGOTT v SWAN HUNTER SHIPBUILDERS LTD (1983);

LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0502288

£2,114.8 59

C SUSTAINED HIGH FREQUENCY

SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS IN BOTH EARS OF 12dB DUE TO NOISE

EXPOSURE.

C DID SUFFER FROM MILD TINNITUS.

JONES v SAUNDERS VALVE CO. LTD (2011); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0201974


LOSS OF 20‐42dB. NO TINNITUS.

BLACKLOCK v SWAN HUNTER SHIPBUILDERS LTD (1983);


£2,446.93 69 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF BETWEEN 27 AND

42dB.

TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.

NICHOLSON v SMITH’s SHIPREPAIRERS (NORTH SHIELDS) LTD (1983); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0501619

£2,582.55 61 VERY SLIGHT HEARING

LOSS. 17‐35dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT

SPECIFIED.

MITCHELL v VICKERS ARMSTRONG LTD AND ANOTHER (1983); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0501533

£3,110.05 54


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

£3,586.88 63 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS

OF 57‐68dB. MILD TINNITUS.

GRAY v SMITH’s SHIP REPAIRERS (NORTH SHIELDS) LTD,

NOVEMBER 1983; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500877

£3,873.83 62 HEARING LOSS OF 52‐

57dB. NO TINNITUS.

THOMPSON & ORS v SMITH’s SHIP REPAIRERS (NORTH

SHIELDS) LTD (1983); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0502199

£5,110.27 62 MILD NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 36dB.

NO TINNITUS. GALLAGHER v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505252


40 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE




£5,133.74 73 C EXPERIENCED BILATERAL HEARING LOSS OF 24.3 dB

OVER 1, 2 & 3kHz.

TINNITUS SUSTAINED, C EXPERIENCED A CONSTANT

“FIZZING” TINNITUS.

CUNNINGHAM v (1) MILLOM HEMATITE ORE & IRON ORE CO. LTD (2) BAE SYSTEMS MARINE LTD (3) COURTAULDS TEXTILE HOLDINGS LTD (2012); LAWTEL

REPORT NO. AM0202060

£5,294.71 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);



OF 32dB. NO TINNITUS.

DAVIES (AJ) v FORD MOTOR CO, JULY 1997; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505250


OF 16dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT

SPECIFIED.

MUSTAFA v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989, LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0501604


LOSS OF 19dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT

SPECIFIED.

PHILLIPS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505251



CARDY v FORD MOTOR CO, ARIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0500346


OF 15dB. MILD TINNITUS.

GREENIDGE v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0500890



DAVIES v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LTD, MAY 1997;


£5,961.99 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



McAFFERTY v RECEIVER FOR METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT, JUNE 1975*


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


41 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE





LOSS OF 10‐20 dB AT 4

kHz.

SLIGHT TINNITUS. HHJ INGLIS

SUGGESTED THAT THE

MINIMUM NIHL AWARD IS

LIKELY TO BE £3000

(3,685.35 (UPDATED MAY

2013)) WITHOUT TINNITUS.

IF THERE IS SLIGHT

TINNITUS, WHICH IS A

NUISANCE TO THE

CLAIMANT, IT WILL BE AT

LEAST £2000 (£2,456.92

(UPDATED MAY 2013)

MORE.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND

DERBYSHIRE DEAFNESS

LITIGATION [2007] EWHC B1 (QB)

[127]; BAKER V QUANTUM

CLOTHING GROUP LIMITED

[2011] UKSC 17 [6]*


LOSS OF 24dB. NO TINNITUS.

TONG v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505247



BYGRAVES v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0500299



SPECIFIED. LINDO v FORD MOTOR CO,

JANUARY 1989

£6,200.28 59

C SUSTAINED BILATERAL SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS OF 23dB over 1, 2

and 3 kHz


COOTE v (1) RF BROOKES LTD (2) G COSTA & CO. LTD (2009);


£6,322.88 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

£6,387.84 62

NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 24dB CAUSES C

TO MISS PARTS OF CONVERSATION AND TELEVISION DIALOGUE.


FELLOWS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505246



SPECIFIED.

BROOKS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT

AM0505245


LOSS OF 21 dB. NO TINNITUS.

JENKINS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); AM0505244



SPECIFIED.

ABRAHAM v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989, LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0503817


42 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE





OF 12.5dB. NO TINNITUS.

FAULKNER v BRITISH RAIL ENG LTD, JUNE 1983*


OF 22dB TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT

SPECIFIED.

JOSEPH v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0501206


LOSS OF 16dB.

INTERMITTENT TINNITUS ONCE EVERY 2‐3 WEEKS, LASTING ONE TO A FEW

HOURS ON EACH OCCASION. DID CAUSE SOME SLEEP

DISTURBANCES.

HONEYCHURCH v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505243

£6,777.99 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

£7,004.47 47 MILD TO MODERATE

NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS of 16dB.

SLIGHT INTERMITTENT TINNITUS.

HOLMES v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505241


LOSS OF 32dB.


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


LOSS OF 15dB. MILD TINNITUS.

THOMAS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505240

£7,274.43 57 C SUFFERED FROM FAIRLY SEVERE HEARING LOSS OF

32dB. NO TINNITUS.

MATHEWS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505239



SPECIFIED.

BROWN v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0500253



FRY v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1996*


LOSS OF 20dB.

MILD TINNITUS INTERMITTENT IN LEFT EAR

ONLY.

RICHARDS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505238


OF 27dB. OCCASIONAL INSIGNIFICANT

TINNITUS.

BARNES v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0500121


43 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE






AMOS v CALOR GAS LTD, SEPTEMBER 1997; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500045


LOSS OF 11.4dB.


BRAMLEY v ARGOS LTD (2011); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0201935

£7,841.89 48 VERY SUBSTANTIAL HEARING LOSS WAS SUSTAINED BY C.


HOLDER v FORD MOTOR CO. (1989); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0501058


OF 23dB. MILD TINNITUS

DUBAR v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0500624



DRISCOLL v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0500621


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


OF 15dB. VERY MILD TINNITUS.

BLAIZE v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1988*


C SUFFERED FROM INTERMITTENT MILD TINNITUS WHICH WAS

SHORT‐LIVED.

POWELL v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505235



LEWIS v BTR PLC., MAY 1999; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0501338



FIELD v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0500730


OF 19dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.

HAYES v FORD MOTOR CO, NOVEMBER 1995*

£8,307.42 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


44 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE





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


OF 31.77 dB. MILD TINNITUS. MUNRO v MOD, JUNE 1985*



ST ROMAINE v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0502081



PYBIS v LIVERPOOL CORP, JUNE 1987*

£8,705.17 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

£8,921.97 51 C EXPERIENCED HEARING

LOSS OF 31.4dB.

C EXPERIENCED MILD TINNITUS WHICH LASTED A FEW MINUTES AT A TIME.

JAMES KELLETT v BRITISH RAIL ENGINEERING LTD (1984)*



EARLAM v HEPWORTH HEATING LTD, JUNE 1996; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0500650

£8,986.06 49 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



REPORTED.

BRENT v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0500234


OF 25dB MILD TINNITUS

WRIGHT v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0502429



BULLER v AUSTIN ROVER GROUP, JULY 1995; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0500276

£9,653.57 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)*


45 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE





LOSS of 20dB.

C SUSTAINED INTERMITTENT MILD/MODERATE TINNITUS WHICH AFFECTED HIM.

BARNETT v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505233



SPECIFIED.

GREEN v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0500881


LOSS OF 22dB.

C SUFFERED FROM MILD/MODERATE TINNITUS,

EXPERIENCING INTERMITTENT RINGING IN

BOTH EARS.

MAYERS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505231


LOSS OF 23dB.

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


OF 26.6dB MODERATE TINNITUS.

NEIL v UEC INDUSTRIES, JUNE 2000*


LOSS OF 13dB.


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



HOBSON v TANQUERAY GORDON LTD, MARCH 1983; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM1747168


LOSS OF 25dB. C SUFFERED FROM MILD INTERMITTENT TINNITUS.

WADE v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505229


OF 20 dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.

STEPHENS v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LTD, JUNE 1995*



JONES v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995;



46 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE




£10,858.91 63

C SUFFERED NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 28.85dB OVER 1, 2 AND

3kHz.

C ALSO SUFFERED FROM MILD TINNITUS.

SQUIRES v CORUS (2006); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0201050


OF 8.6dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.

KAY v IW COOK (WIVENHOE) LTD, JUNE 1987*

£11,536.78 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

£11,553.51 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


OF 6.3 dB.

TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT

SPECIFIED. IF NO TINNITUS

AWARD WOULD HAVE BEEN

£5,169.20.

PATEL V AKZO NOBEL LIMITED

(UNREPORTED, BLACKPOOL

COUNTY COURT, 08/08/2008)



ROLLINSON v THOMAS C WILD LTD, JUNE 1979*



CASE v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1990; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505280



EVANS v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995;



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


LOSS OF 15dB.

C SUFFERED FROM A CONSTANT RIGHT SIDED MODERATE TINNITUS.

R P PUGH v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505226


OF 28.8dB. MILD TINNITUS.

ELLIOT v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1990*



READ v BRITISH RAIL BOARD, OCTOBER 1997*


47 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE





LOSS OF 23 dB.

C SUFFERED CONTINUOUS MODERATE TINNITUS WHICH CAUSES HIM

DIFFICULTY IN GETTING BACK TO SLEEP IF WOKEN.

JONES v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505224

£13,848.5 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



MORRIS v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995

£14,397 68 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS

OF 55.5dB. SEVERE TINNITUS.

WARNE v OCTAVIUS HUNT LTD, JANUARY 2002; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0502849

£14,614.84 43

SIGNIFICANT NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 38dB AT HIGHER

FREQUENCIES.


HURLOW v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505223



BERRY v STONE MANGANESE, DECEMBER 1971*


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



BIXBY v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1990; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505278

£15,860.97 20 C SUFFERED HEARING LOSS

IN HIS LEFT EAR OF 37.33dB.

C ALSO SUFFERS CONSTANT TINNITUS WHICH CAUSES HIM SLEEP DISTURBANCE.

BELL v MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (2011); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505075

£16,246.36 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


OF 78.3dB. NO TINNITUS. SMITH v BRITISH RAIL, JUNE 1980


48 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE





LOSS OF 29dB.

C SUFFERED FROM QUITE A SERIOUS CASE OF

MODERATE BILATERAL TINNITUS WHICH HAD A

SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON C’s ENJOYMENT OF LIFE.

ROACH v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505220

£18,053.14 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



MEYRICK v AUSTIN ROVER GROUP, JULY 1995*



ROBINSON v BRITISH RAIL, JUNE 1981*

£19,419.9 57 C SUFFERED FROM

PERMANENT HEARING LOSS.

C ALSO SUFFERED FROM TINNITUS.

BARRY JOHN CLARK v TRELLEBORG (2006); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201039


OF 24dB. SEVERE TINNITUS.

OWENS v EXPESS GROUP, JANUARY 1991; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM1763626



EDWARDS (ALFRED) v MOD, JUNE 1982

£20,242.76 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


OF 55.4dB. MILD TINNITUS. IRONS v MOD, JUNE 1984*



ROBINSON v BRITISH GAS, NOVEMBER 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM1763532


OF 56‐60dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.

TRIPP v MOD, DECEMBER 1982; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM1748777


49 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE




£25,352.31 52

C SUFFERED FROM PERMANENT HEARING

LOSS OF APPROXIMATELY 9dB AND HAD TO WEAR HEARING AIDS FROM

2003.


HILLMAN v C & J CLARK INTERNATIONAL LTD (2006);




HESLOP v METALOCK, JUNE 1981*



HILL v ARC (SOUTH WALES) LTD, JULY 1998; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0501031


OF 15‐18dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. BAILEY v ICI Ltd, JUNE 1979*



ABRAMOWICZ v CASBORUNDUM CO LTD, JUNE 1981*

Appendix 4: PSLA awards by age


BC


51 | P a g e

APPENDIX 4: PSLA AWARDS BY AGE

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE




£15,860.97 20 C SUFFERED HEARING

LOSS IN HIS LEFT EAR OF 37.33dB.

C ALSO SUFFERS CONSTANT TINNITUS WHICH CAUSES HIM SLEEP DISTURBANCE.

MODERATE

BELL v MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (2011); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505075



KAY v IW COOK (WIVENHOE) LTD, JUNE 1987*

£5,961.99 30

NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 30dB AND HAD

SOME DIFFICULTY PICKING UP CONVERSATION.


TINNITUS WHICH CEASED AFTER RETIREMENT.

SWARBRICK v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505249


C SUFFERED FROM INTERMITTENT MILD TINNITUS WHICH WAS

SHORT‐LIVED.

POWELL v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505235



REPORTED.

BRENT v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0500234



ROLLINSON v THOMAS C WILD LTD, JUNE 1979*


OF 15‐18dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. BAILEY v ICI Ltd, JUNE 1979*


LOSS OF 11.9dB.

C DID NOT SUFFER FROM TINNITUS.

MILLER v ARGOS LTD (2011); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0201918


LOSS OF 11.4dB.


BRAMLEY v ARGOS LTD (2011); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0201935



PYBIS v LIVERPOOL CORP, JUNE 1987*



LEWIS v BTR PLC., MAY 1999; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0501338



ROBINSON v BRITISH GAS, NOVEMBER 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM1763532


52 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE




£6,322.88 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



FAULKNER v BRITISH RAIL ENG LTD, JUNE 1983*

£14,614.84 43

SIGNIFICANT NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 38dB AT HIGHER

FREQUENCIES.


HURLOW v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505223


OF 15dB. VERY MILD TINNITUS.

BLAIZE v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1988*

£13,848.5 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


LOSS OF 21 dB. NO TINNITUS.

JENKINS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); AM0505244

£8,705.17 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



CARDY v FORD MOTOR CO, ARIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0500346



EARLAM v HEPWORTH HEATING LTD, JUNE 1996; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0500650



EVANS v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995;



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


53 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE





LOSS OF 23 dB.

C SUFFERED CONTINUOUS MODERATE TINNITUS WHICH CAUSES HIM DIFFICULTY IN GETTING BACK TO SLEEP IF

WOKEN.

JONES v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505224

£7,004.47 47 MILD TO MODERATE

NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS of 16dB.

SLIGHT INTERMITTENT TINNITUS.

HOLMES v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505241


OF 27dB. OCCASIONAL INSIGNIFICANT

TINNITUS.

BARNES v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0500121

£20,242.76 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



SPECIFIED.

MUSTAFA v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989, LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0501604


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


LOSS OF 32dB.


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

£7,841.89 48 VERY SUBSTANTIAL HEARING LOSS WAS SUSTAINED BY C.


HOLDER v FORD MOTOR CO. (1989); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0501058

£11,536.78 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



MEYRICK v AUSTIN ROVER GROUP, JULY 1995*

£8,986.06 49 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


54 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE






BULLER v AUSTIN ROVER GROUP, JULY 1995; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0500276


OF 20 dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.

STEPHENS v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LTD, JUNE 1995*


LOSS OF 15dB.

C SUFFERED FROM A CONSTANT RIGHT SIDED MODERATE TINNITUS.

R P PUGH v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505226


LOSS OF 10‐20 dB AT 4

kHz.

SLIGHT TINNITUS. HHJ INGLIS

SUGGESTED THAT THE

MINIMUM NIHL AWARD IS

LIKELY TO BE £3000

(3,685.35 (UPDATED MAY

2013)) WITHOUT TINNITUS.

IF THERE IS SLIGHT TINNITUS,

WHICH IS A NUISANCE TO

THE CLAIMANT, IT WILL BE

AT LEAST £2000 (£2,456.92

(UPDATED MAY 2013) MORE.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND

DERBYSHIRE DEAFNESS

LITIGATION [2007] EWHC B1 (QB)

[127]; BAKER V QUANTUM

CLOTHING GROUP LIMITED

[2011] UKSC 17 [6]*


LOSS of 20dB.

C SUSTAINED INTERMITTENT MILD TINNITUS WHICH

AFFECTED HIM.

BARNETT v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505233



BERRY v STONE MANGANESE, DECEMBER 1971*


LOSS OF 15dB. MILD TINNITUS.

THOMAS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505240


OF 23dB. MILD TINNITUS

DUBAR v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0500624

£8,921.97 51 C EXPERIENCED HEARING

LOSS OF 31.4dB.

C EXPERIENCED MILD TINNITUS WHICH LASTED A FEW MINUTES AT A TIME.

JAMES KELLETT v BRITISH RAIL ENGINEERING LTD (1984)*



READ v BRITISH RAIL BOARD, OCTOBER 1997*



BYGRAVES v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0500299


55 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE





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


LOSS OF 25dB. C SUFFERED FROM MILD INTERMITTENT TINNITUS.

WADE v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505229

£18,053.14 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. AVERAGE LOSS

OF 31.17 dB.

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

£25,352.31 52

C SUFFERED FROM PERMANENT HEARING

LOSS OF APPROXIMATELY 19dB AND HAD TO WEAR HEARING AIDS FROM

2003.


HILLMAN v C & J CLARK INTERNATIONAL LTD (2006);



OF 22dB TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT

SPECIFIED.

JOSEPH v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0501206



FRY v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1996*



ST ROMAINE v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0502081

£16,246.36 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

£3,110.05 54


SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS. MEDICAL REPORTS

SUGGEST C HAD SUSTAINED 20dB OF NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS.


WHALLEY v BAKER PERKINS LTD (2012); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0202015


56 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE




£5,294.71 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);




GREENIDGE v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0500890



DAVIES v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LTD, MAY 1997;



LOSS OF 22dB.

C SUFFERED FROM MILD/MODERATE TINNITUS,

EXPERIENCING INTERMITTENT RINGING IN

BOTH EARS.

MAYERS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505231


LOSS OF 29dB.

C SUFFERED FROM QUITE A SERIOUS CASE OF

MODERATE BILATERAL TINNITUS WHICH HAD A

SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON C’s ENJOYMENT OF LIFE.

ROACH v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505220



EDWARDS (ALFRED) v MOD, JUNE 1982



HESLOP v METALOCK, JUNE 1981*


LOSS OF 23‐30dB. MILD TINNITUS.

WAGGOTT v SWAN HUNTER SHIPBUILDERS LTD (1983);



LOSS OF 24dB. NO TINNITUS.

TONG v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505247



HOBSON v TANQUERAY GORDON LTD, MARCH 1983;



57 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE




£11,553.51 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



CASE v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1990; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505280



ROBINSON v BRITISH RAIL, JUNE 1981*



SPECIFIED.

PHILLIPS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505251



SPECIFIED.

ABRAHAM v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989, LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0503817



JONES v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995;



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



OWENS v EXPESS GROUP, JANUARY 1991; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM1763626



HILL v ARC (SOUTH WALES) LTD, JULY 1998; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0501031

£7,274.43 57 C SUFFERED FROM FAIRLY SEVERE HEARING LOSS OF

32dB. NO TINNITUS.

MATHEWS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505239



FIELD v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0500730



HAYES v FORD MOTOR CO, NOVEMBER 1995*


58 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE




£19,419.9 57 C SUFFERED FROM

PERMANENT HEARING LOSS.

C ALSO SUFFERED FROM TINNITUS.

BARRY JOHN CLARK v TRELLEBORG (2006); LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201039


LOSS OF 16dB.

INTERMITTENT TINNITUS ONCE EVERY 2‐3 WEEKS, LASTING ONE TO A FEW

HOURS ON EACH OCCASION. DID CAUSE SOME SLEEP

DISTURBANCES.

HONEYCHURCH v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505243



SPECIFIED.

BROWN v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0500253



SPECIFIED.

GREEN v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0500881



BIXBY v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1990; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505278

£2,114.8 59


SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS IN BOTH EARS OF 12dB DUE TO NOISE

EXPOSURE.


JONES v SAUNDERS VALVE CO. LTD (2011); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0201974

£6,200.28 59

C SUSTAINED BILATERAL SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS OF 23dB over 1, 2

and 3 kHz


COOTE v (1) RF BROOKES LTD (2) G COSTA & CO. LTD (2009);



LOSS OF 23dB.

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



SPECIFIED. LINDO v FORD MOTOR CO,

JANUARY 1989


59 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE





LOSS OF 13dB.


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

£2,582.55 61 VERY SLIGHT HEARING

LOSS. 17‐35dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT

SPECIFIED.

MITCHELL v VICKERS ARMSTRONG LTD AND ANOTHER (1983); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0501533



DAVIES (AJ) v FORD MOTOR CO, JULY 1997; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505250



McAFFERTY v RECEIVER FOR METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT, JUNE 1975*


LOSS OF 20dB.

MILD TINNITUS INTERMITTENT IN LEFT EAR

ONLY.

RICHARDS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505238



DRISCOLL v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0500621


OF 55.4dB. MILD TINNITUS. IRONS v MOD, JUNE 1984*

£3,873.83 62 HEARING LOSS OF 52‐

57dB. NO TINNITUS.

THOMPSON & ORS v SMITH’s SHIP REPAIRERS (NORTH



NO TINNITUS. GALLAGHER v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505252

£6,387.84 62

NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 24dB CAUSES C

TO MISS PARTS OF CONVERSATION AND TELEVISION DIALOGUE.


FELLOWS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0505246


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


60 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE




£8,307.42 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


LOSS OF 20‐42dB. NO TINNITUS.

BLACKLOCK v SWAN HUNTER SHIPBUILDERS LTD (1983);



OF 57‐68dB. MILD TINNITUS.

GRAY v SMITH’s SHIP REPAIRERS (NORTH SHIELDS) LTD,

NOVEMBER 1983; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500877


OF 25dB MILD TINNITUS

WRIGHT v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0502429

£9,653.57 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)*

£10,858.91 63

C SUFFERED NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF 28.85dB OVER 1, 2 AND

3kHz.

C ALSO SUFFERED FROM MILD TINNITUS.

SQUIRES v CORUS (2006); LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM0201050


OF 28.8dB. MILD TINNITUS.

ELLIOT v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1990*



SPECIFIED.

BROOKS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994); LAWTEL REPORT

AM0505245


OF 31.77 dB. MILD TINNITUS. MUNRO v MOD, JUNE 1985*


OF 56‐60dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.

TRIPP v MOD, DECEMBER 1982; LAWTEL REPORT NO.

AM1748777



ABRAMOWICZ v CASBORUNDUM CO LTD, JUNE 1981*



MORRIS v CALSONIC LLANELLI RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995


OF 78.3dB. NO TINNITUS. SMITH v BRITISH RAIL, JUNE 1980


61 | P a g e

UPDATED PSLA

AWARD END MAY 2013

CLAIMANT’S AGE





OF 26.6dB MODERATE TINNITUS.

NEIL v UEC INDUSTRIES, JUNE 2000*



AMOS v CALOR GAS LTD, SEPTEMBER 1997; LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500045

£14,397 68 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS


WARNE v OCTAVIUS HUNT LTD, JANUARY 2002; LAWTEL REPORT

NO. AM0502849

£2,446.93 69 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF BETWEEN 27 AND

42dB.


NICHOLSON v SMITH’s SHIPREPAIRERS (NORTH


£5,133.74 73 C EXPERIENCED BILATERAL HEARING LOSS OF 24.3 dB

OVER 1, 2 & 3kHz.

TINNITUS SUSTAINED, C EXPERIENCED A CONSTANT

“FIZZING” TINNITUS. MILD/MODERATE.

CUNNINGHAM v (1) MILLOM HEMATITE ORE & IRON ORE CO. LTD (2) BAE SYSTEMS MARINE LTD (3) COURTAULDS TEXTILE HOLDINGS LTD (2012); LAWTEL

REPORT NO. AM0202060


OF 6.3 dB.

TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT

SPECIFIED. IF NO TINNITUS

AWARD WOULD HAVE BEEN

£5,169.20.

PATEL V AKZO NOBEL LIMITED

(UNREPORTED, BLACKPOOL

COUNTY COURT, 08/08/2008)


BC

Partners: B. Cetnik, C. OwenRegistered Office: 1 Nelson Mews, Southend-on-Sea, SS1 1ALBC Legal LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England and Wales Registered No: OC379945We are Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulations Authority (SRA No 590579)

DisclaimerThis newsletter does not present a complete orcomprehensive statement of the law, nor does itconstitute legal advice. It is intended only to provide anupdate on issues that may be of interest to those handlingoccupational disease claims. Specialist legal adviceshould always be sought in any particular case.

© BC Legal LLP 2013.

BC Legal is a Limited Liability Partnership registered inEngland and Wales under number OC379945. We areauthorised and regulated by the Solicitors RegulationAuthority. The registered office is 1 Nelson Mews,Southend-on-Sea, SS1 1AL. The partners are Boris Cetnikand Charlotte Owen. More details on the firm can befound at www.bc-legal.co.uk

NOISE INDUCED BC HEARING LOSS - BC Legal - Home · Page 3 1. 2. 3. NIHL PSLA Ready Reckoner...

Documents

Transcript of NOISE INDUCED BC HEARING LOSS - BC Legal - Home · Page 3 1. 2. 3. NIHL PSLA Ready Reckoner...