NOISE INDUCED BC HEARING LOSS · hearing loss. Apportionment can therefore reflect:-other exposures...
Transcript of NOISE INDUCED BC HEARING LOSS · hearing loss. Apportionment can therefore reflect:-other exposures...
Page 1
NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSSTHE QUANTUM GUIDE2ND EDITION
BC LEGALB R I N G I N G C L A R I T Y
BC
Page 2
READY RECKONER TABLE: AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS (WITHOUT 10% UPLIFT)
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
None £5,150 £4,980 £4,825 £4,665 £4,505 £4,345 £4,185 £4,030 £3,870 £3,710
Slight/ £9,250 £8,820 £8,390 £7,965 £7,535 £7,110 £6,680 £6,255 £5,830 £5,400
Mild £11,000 £10,705 £10,410 £10,115 £9,820 £9,525 £9,230 £8,930 £8,635 £8,340
Moderate £20,890 £19,690 £18,490 £17,290 £16,090 £14,890 £13,690 £12,490 £11,290 £10,090
Severe £33,500 £32,200 £30,900 £29,600 £28,300 £27,000 £25,700 £24,400 £23,100 £21,800
Some
None £6,970 £6,800 £6,640 £6,480 £6,325 £6,165 £6,005 £5,845 £5,685 £5,530
Slight/ £10,160 £9,835 £9,510 £9,180 £8,855 £8,530 £8,200 £7,875 £7,545 £7,220
Mild £11,000 £10,815 £10,620 £10,425 £10,230 £10,030 £9,835 £9,640 £9,445 £9,250
Moderate £21,800 £20,600 £19,400 £18,200 £17,000 £15,800 £14,600 £13,400 £12,200 £11,000
Severe £33,500 £32,310 £31,110 £29,910 £28,710 £27,510 £26,310 £25,110 £23,910 £22,710
Moderate
None £17,255 £16,455 £15,660 £14,865 £14,070 £13,275 £12,480 £11,680 £10,885 £10,090
Slight/ £18,770 £17,845 £16,915 £15,980 £15,050 £14,120 £13,185 £12,255 £11,325 £10,390
Mild £20,280 £19,205 £18,140 £17,080 £16,015 £14,950 £13,885 £12,825 £11,760 £10,695
Moderate £21,800 £20,600 £19,400 £18,200 £17,000 £15,800 £14,600 £13,400 £12,200 £11,000
Severe £33,500 £32,420 £31,320 £30,220 £29,120 £28,020 £26,920 £25,820 £24,720 £23,620
Severe
None £21,800 £21,290 £20,785 £20,280 £19,780 £19,275 £18,770 £18,265 £17,760 £17,255
Slight/ £24,730 £24,090 £23,465 £22,835 £22,210 £21,580 £20,955 £20,330 £19,700 £19,075
Mild £27,655 £26,890 £26,140 £25,390 £24,640 £23,890 £23,140 £22,390 £21,640 £20,890
Moderate £30,580 £29,690 £28,820 £27,945 £27,075 £26,200 £25,330 £24,455 £23,580 £22,710
Severe £33,500 £32,490 £31,495 £30,500 £29,505 £28,510 £27,515 £26,520 £25,523 £24,530
Page 3
READY RECKONER TABLE: AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS (WITH 10% UPLIFT)
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 £5,665 £5,480 £5,305 £5,130 £4,955 £4,780 £4,605 £4,430 £4,255 £4,080
Slight/occasional £10,175 £9,700 £9,230 £8,760 £8,290 £7,820 £7,350 £6,880 £6,410 £5,940
Mild £12,100 £11,775 £11,450 £11,125 £10,800 £10,475 £10,150 £9,825 £9,500 £9,175
Moderate £22,980 £21,660 £20,340 £19,020 £17,700 £16,380 £15,060 £13,740 £12,420 £11,100
Severe £36,850 £35,420 £33,990 £32,560 £31,130 £29,700 £28,270 £26,840 £25,410 £23,980
Some
(16 to 30 dB)
None £7,665 £7,480 £7,305 £7,130 £6,955 £6,780 £6,605 £6,430 £6,255 £6,080
Slight/occasional £11,175 £10,820 £10,460 £10,100 £9,740 £9,380 £9,020 £8,660 £8,300 £7,940
Mild £12,100 £11,895 £11,680 £11,465 £11,250 £11,035 £10,820 £10,605 £10,390 £10,175
Moderate £23,980 £22,660 £21,340 £20,020 £18,700 £17,380 £16,060 £14,740 £13,420 £12,100
Severe £36,850 £35,540 £34,220 £32,900 £31,580 £30,260 £28,940 £27,620 £26,300.00 £24,980
Moderate (31 to 45 dB)
None £18,980 £18,100 £17,225 £16,350 £15,475 £14,600 £13,725 £12,850 £11,975 £11,100
Slight/occasional £20,645 £19,630 £18,605 £17,580 £16,555 £15,530 £14,505 £13,480 £12,455 £11,430
Mild £22,310 £21,125 £19,955 £18,785 £17,615 £16,445 £15,275 £14,105 £12,935 £11,765
Moderate £23,980 £22,660 £21,340 £20,020 £18,700 £17,380 £16,060 £14,740 £13,420 £12,100
Severe £36,850 £35,660 £34,450 £33,240 £32,030 £30,820 £29,610 £28,400 £27,190 £25,980
Severe (46+ dB)
None £23,980 £23,420 £22,865 £22,310 £21,755 £21,200 £20,645 £20,090 £19,535 £18,980
Slight/occasional £27,200 £26,500 £25,810 £25,120 £24,430 £23,740 £23,050 £22,360 £21,670 £20,980
Mild £30,420 £29,580 £28,755 £27,930 £27,105 £26,280 £25,455 £24,630 £23,805 £22,980
Moderate £33,640 £32,660 £31,700 £30,740 £29,780 £28,820 £27,860 £26,900 £25,940 £24,980
Severe £36,850 £35,740 £34,645 £33,550 £32,455 £31,360 £30,265 £29,170 £28,075 £26,980
Page 4
1.
2.
3.
NIHL PSLA Ready ReckonerExplanatory Notes:
The highest figure in red bold (bottom left) is the upper bracket of the 12th edition of the JC Guidelines. The lowest award (top right corner) represents HHJ Inglis’ view in the Nottingham and Derbyshire Deafness Litigation [2007] EWHC B1 (QB) [127] that the lowest award for NIHL was likely to be in the region of £3,000 (adjusted for inflation). The first table shows these figures without the 10% uplift, the second table shows these figures with the 10% uplift. It is assumed that awards at the bottom end of the JC bracket will involve cases where (i) the claimant was elderly and likely to have experienced some hearing loss anyway; and (ii) there was limited hearing loss and no tinnitus. The lower bracket figure is therefore placed in the top right hand corner of the table (claimants aged 70+ / limited hearing loss and no tinnitus). Conversely, the upper bracket figure occupies the bottom left hand side of the table (claimants aged up to 40 with severe hearing loss and severe tinnitus). 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 4
Page 5
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 12th Edition2.2 Further Analysis
Page 5
Page 6
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.
Page 7
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 October 2013. The Ready Reckoner Table of damages is based both on these updated figures and the 12th edition of the Judicial College Guidelines.
1.7
3
Page 8
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 5, section (B)(d) of the Guidelines, which states:
Chapter 5(B)(d) Partial Hearing Loss and/or 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.
CategoryWithout 10%
UpliftWith 10%
Uplift
(i) Severe tinnitus and hearing loss£21,800 to
£33,500£23,980 to
£36,850
(ii) Moderate tinnitus and hearing loss or moderate to severe tinnitus or hearing loss alone.
£11,000 to £21,800
£12,100 to £23,980
(iii) Mild tinnitus with some hearing loss.£9,250 to £11,000
£10,175 to £12,100
(iv) Slight or occasional tinnitus with slight hearing loss
£5,400 to £9,250
£5,940 to £10,175
(v) Slight hearing loss without tinnitus or slight tinnitus without hearing loss.
Up to £5,150 Up to £5,665
The 12th Edition
2.1.2
One part of the Jackson reforms was a 10% increase in general damages. The 10% uplift was implemented by the decision in Simmons v Castle [2012] EWCA Civ 1039. The Court of Appeal subsequently revisited its decision in Simmons v Castle [2012] EWCA Civ 1288, confirming that the 10% uplift only applies in cases where a success fee is no longer recoverable.
The following analysis of the Guidelines will use the deafness/tinnitus figures that take account of the 10% uplift, namely those appearing in the second column of the above table, since they will ultimately prevail in the future.
Judicial College, Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in
Personal Injury Cases (12th edition, OUP 2013).
4
4
2.
Page 9
The guideline figures change with each edition. The change accounts for inflation, new decisions and any changes in policy. In the case of NIHL, the figures have changes in each successive edition (since the 9th edition) in accordance with inflation. Of course, in the 12th edition the 10% uplift means the figures have significantly increased. Category (v) was added in the 11th edition. Previously only categories (i) to (iv) existed.
The addition of the fifth category in the 11th edition removed some of the descriptive ambiguity associated with the previous editions, although there is still no guidance given as to what is meant by ‘slight’, ‘some’, ‘moderate’ and ‘severe’ hearing loss. We assume that ‘hearing loss’ means NIHL rather than the overall hearing loss.
2.1.3
2.1.4
Page 10
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’).
Page 11
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 £23,980-£36,850(ii) Moderate tinnitus andslight-some noise induced hearing
loss of up to 30 dB or moderate to severe tinnitus or moderate–severe noise induced hearing loss alone exceeding 31 dB
£12,100 to £23,980
(iii) Mild tinnitus with some noise induced hearing loss of between 16-30 dB.
£10,175 to £12,100
(iv) Slight or occasional tinnitus with slight noise induced hearing lossof up to 15 dB
£5,940 to £10,175
(v) Slight noise induced hearing loss of up to 15 dB without tinnitus or slight tinnitus without hearing loss.
Up to £5,665
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
Page 12
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?
Further Analysis
2.2.1 12th edition of the Judicial College Guidelines was published on 19th September 2013.
This section will analyse changes between the different editions of the JC Guidelines. In the following analysis attention will be focused only on the upper bracket of category (i) and the lower bracket of category (iv), as they represent the inflationary uplift applied to all of the figures.
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 £5,30012th (2013) £36,850 £5,940
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.
5 6
5
6
Page 13
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:
£40,000
£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 percentage change. It shows that the upper bracket has risen at a slightly faster rate than the lower bracket on average. The sharper increase between the 11th and 12th edition reflects the 10% increase in general damages:
9th (2008) 10th (2010) 11th(2012) 12th(2013)
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%
12th (2013) 13.38% 12.08%Average % change by edition 8.37% 7.82%
Since the 9th edition in 2008 the upper bracket has increased by 27.07%. Meanwhile, the lower bracket has increased by 25.05%.
2.2.6
Page 14
The 12th edition of the Guidelines was published on 19 September 2013. There have been no policy changes that needed to be reflected in the Guidelines. Accordingly they represent inflationary uplift alone. In addition, there is a column with the figures showing the 10% uplift.
Most cases will, for the time being, still be ones where a success fee can be recovered (success fees can be recovered where the relevant conditional fee arrangement (CFA) with success fee has been entered prior to 1 April 2013: see section 44(6) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and CPR 48). In those cases Simmons confirms that the 10% uplift does not apply. Therefore there is a need to show estimated awards by reference to the JC Guidelines without the 10% uplift. However, because success fees will not be recoverable in future claims, meaning that the 10% uplift will apply, there is also a need to show estimated awards by reference to the JC Guidelines with the 10% uplift.
Accordingly, in Tariff Tables 1 we present two tables: the first shows estimated awards based on the JC Guidelines without the 10% uplift. The estimated awards are compared with actual awards (updated for inflation). The second table shows estimated awards based on the JC Guidelines with the 10% uplift. The estimated awards are compared with the same actual awards (updated for inflation) but these have also been artificially inflated by 10% so that accurate comparisons can be made.
2.2.7
Page 15
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:
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 16
READY RECKONER TABLE: AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS
BC LEGALB R I N G I N G C L A R I T Y
BC
Page 16
Page 17
READY RECKONER TABLE: AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS (WITHOUT 10% UPLIFT)
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
None £5,150 £4,980 £4,825 £6,865.20
£4,665£6,645.78 £8,366.24
£4,505 £4,345 £6,020.55 £4,185 £4,030
£4,359.02 £3,870 £3,710
Slight/ £9,250 £8,820 £8,390 £7,965 £7,535
£6,188.97 £11,685.22
£7,110 £6,680 £6,255 £5,830 £5,400
Mild £11,000 £10,705 £10,410 £7,938.03
£10,115 £6,404.24 £8,227.63 £8,817.18
£9,820 £9,101.69
£9,525£5,362.83 £6,013.83 £7,108.73 £8,538.98
£9,230 £2,142.01 £10,454.02
£8,930 £9,726.94 £8,635 £8,340
Moderate £20,890 £11,066.30 £19,690 £18,490 £17,290
£16,090£12,671.03 £12,860.79
£14,890 £25,678.52
£13,690£10,981.56 £15,380.24
£12,490 £11,290 £14,360.50 £10,090
Severe £33,500 £32,200 £30,900 £29,600 £28,300 £27,000 £25,700 £24,400 £23,100 £21,800
Some
None £6,970 £6,800 £6,640 £8,624.37
£6,480 £6,551.37
£6,325 £5,950.39 £9,055.23
£6,165£6,235.15 £7,370.30 £10,606.95
£6,005 £5,845
£2,470.46 £8,414.31
£5,685 £5,530
Slight/ £10,160 £9,835 £9,510 £9,180
£8,855£6,170.78 £7,094.60 £7,713.47
£8,530 £8,200 £6,815.06 £7,875 £7,545 £7,220
Mild £11,000 £6,038.70
£10,815 £8,363.21 £10,620 £10,425
£10,230 £9,714.45 £9,819.83
£10,030£1,743.86 £6,240.77 £7,942.79 £10,029.20 £10,872.18
£9,835 £6,280.06 £8,374.63
£9,640£7,665.10 £7,942.79 £9,644.82 £10,998.63 £12,881.61
£9,445 £9,250 £5,183.13
Moderate £21,800 £20,600 £19,400 £18,200
£17,000£10,873.40 £12,808.47 £13,718.18 £18,594.23
£15,800£3,150.06 £13,381.10 £16,455.40 £17,402.17
£14,600 £8,380.92 £10,246.78
£13,400 £8,234.86
£12,200 £10,285.06 £11,000
Severe £33,500 £32,310 £32,347.81 £31,110 £29,910 £28,710
£27,510 £20,060.09 £26,357.94
£26,310 £19,733.38 £30,863.26
£25,110 £23,910 £22,710
Page 18
Moderate
None £17,255 £16,455 £15,660 £14,865 £14,070 £13,275
£12,647.70 £19,350.36
£12,480£7,368.03 £15,831.05
£11,680£5,176.03 £5,501.82
£10,885 7,906.47 £10,090
Slight/ £18,770 £17,845 £16,915 £15,980 £15,050 £14,120 £13,185 £12,255 £11,325 £10,390
Mild £20,280 £19,205 £12,378.71 £18,140 £17,080 £16,015
£14,950£8,623.60 £9,007.79 £11,702.17
£13,885 £12,825 £6,129.54 £8,553.09
£11,760 £10,695
Moderate £21,800 £16,065.05 £20,600 £19,400 £18,200
£14,802.89 £17,000 £15,800£18,285 £14,600 £13,400 £12,200 £11,000
Severe £33,500 £32,420 £31,320 £30,220 £29,120 £28,020 £26,920 £25,820 £24,720 £23,620
Severe
None £21,800 £21,290 £20,785 £20,280 £19,780£14,997.36 £19,275 £18,770 £18,265
£3,923.68 £17,760
£16,847.13 £17,255
Slight/ £24,730 £24,090 £23,465 £22,835 £22,210 £21,580 £20,955 £20,330 £19,700 £19,075
Mild £27,655 £26,890 £26,140 £25,390 £24,640 £23,890 £23,140 £22,390£3,633.03 £21,278.45
£21,640 £20,890
Moderate £30,580 £29,690 £28,820 £27,945 £27,075 £26,200 £25,330 £24,455£23,065.99 £23,580 £22,710
Severe £33,500 £32,490 £31,495 £30,500 £21,470.51 £29,505 £28,510 £27,515 £26,520
£52,958.92 £25,523
£14,535.49 £24,530
Explanatory Notes:
1. The highest figure in red bold (bottom left) is the upper bracket of the 12th edition of the JC Guidelines without the 10% uplift. The lowest award (top right corner)
represents HHJ Inglis’ view in the Nottingham and Derbyshire Deafness Litigation [2007] EWHC B1 (QB) [127] that the lowest award for NIHL was likely to be in the
region of £3,710 (updated to October 2013 without the 10% uplift).
2. It is assumed that awards at the bottom end of the JC bracket will involve cases where (i) the claimant was elderly and likely to have experienced some hearing
loss anyway; and (ii) there was limited hearing loss and no tinnitus. The lower bracket figure of £3,710 is therefore placed in the top right hand corner of the table
(claimants aged 70+ / limited hearing loss and no tinnitus).
3. Conversely, the upper bracket figure of £33,500 occupies the bottom left hand side of the table (claimants aged up to 40 with severe hearing loss and severe
tinnitus).
4. Estimated awards at different severity of symptoms and ages are based on interpolation of the JC Guidelines between the far left and far right columns.
5. All estimated figures are shown in bold.
6. We have compared the estimated figures with actual awards (where these exist)based again on age / severity of symptoms.
7. Cases not identifying the severity of tinnitus are omitted from this table but appear in the tables of common law awards.
Page 19
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.
Page 20
READY RECKONER TABLE: AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS (WITH 10% UPLIFT)
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 £5,665 £5,480 £5,305
£7,551.72
£5,130£7,310.36
£9,202.86 £4,955
£4,780 £6,622.61
£4,605 £4,430
£4,794.92 £4,255 £4,080
Slight/ occasional £10,175 £9,700
£9,230 £8,731.83
£8,760 £8,290
£6,807.87
£12,853.74 £7,820 £7,350 £6,880 £6,410 £5,940
Mild £12,100 £11,775 £11,450
£11,125 £7,044.66
£9,050.39
£9,698.90
£10,800 £10,011.86
£10,475£5,899.11
£6,615.21
£7,819.60
£9,392.88
£10,150 £2,356.21
£11,499.42
£9,825 £10,699.63
£9,500 £9,175
Moderate £22,980
£12,172.93 £21,660 £20,340 £19,020
£17,700£13,938.13
£14,146.87
£16,380 £28,246.37
£15,060£12,079.72
£16,918.26 £13,740
£12,420 £15,796.55
£11,100
Severe £36,850 £35,420 £33,990 £32,560 £31,130 £29,700 £28,270 £26,840 £25,410 £23,980
Some (16 to 30 dB)
None £7,665 £7,480 £7,305
£9,486.81 £7,130
£7,206.51
£6,955 £6,545.43
£9,960.75
£6,780£6,858.67
£8,107.33
£11,667.65
£6,605 £6,430
£2,717.51
£9,255.74 £6,255 £6,080
Slight/ occasional £11,175 £10,820 £10,460 £10,100
£9,740£6,787.86
£7,804.06
£8,484.82
£9,380 £9,020
£7,496.57 £8,660 £8,300 £7,940
Mild £12,100 £6,642.57
£11,895 £9,199.53
£11,680 £11,465 £11,250
£10,685.90
£10,801.81
£11,035 £1,918.25
£6,864.85
£8,737.07
£11,032.12
£11,959.40
£10,820 £6,908.07
£9,212.09
£10,605£8,431.61
£8,737.07
£10,609.30
£12,098.49
£14,169.77
£10,390 £10,175 £5,701.44
Moderate £23,980 £22,660 £21,340 £20,020
£18,700£11,960.74
£14,089.32
£15,090.00
£20,453.65
£17,380£3,465.07
£14,719.21
£18,100.94
£19,142.39
£16,060 £9,219.01
£11,271.46
£14,740 £9,058.35
£13,420 £11,313.57
£12,100
Page 21
Severe £36,850 £35,540
£35,582.59 £34,220 £32,900 £31,580
£30,260£22,066.10
£28,993.73
£28,940£21,706.72
£33,949.59 £27,620 £26,300.00 £24,980
Moderate (31 to 45 dB)
None £18,980 £18,100 £17,225 £16,350 £15,475 £14,600
£13,912.47
£21,285.40
£13,725£8,104.83
£17,414.16
£12,850£5,693.63
£6,052.00
£11,975 £8,697.12
£11,100
Slight/occasional £20,645 £19,630 £18,605 £17,580 £16,555 £15,530 £14,505 £13,480 £12,455 £11,430
Mild £22,310 £21,125
£13,616.58 £19,955 £18,785 £17,615
£16,445£9,485.96
£9,908.57
£12,872.39
£15,275 £14,105 £6,742.49
£9,408.40 £12,935 £11,765
Moderate £23,980
£17,671.56 £22,660 £21,340
£20,020£16,283.18
£18,700 £17,380
£20,113.50 £16,060 £14,740 £13,420 £12,100
Severe £36,850 £35,660 £34,450 £33,240 £32,030 £30,820 £29,610 £28,400 £27,190 £25,980
Severe (46+ dB)
None £23,980 £23,420 £22,865 £22,310 £21,755
£16,497.10 £21,200 £20,645
£20,090£4,316.05
£19,535£18,531.84
£18,980
Slight/occasional £27,200 £26,500 £25,810 £25,120 £24,430 £23,740 £23,050 £22,360 £21,670 £20,980
Mild £30,420 £29,580 £28,755 £27,930 £27,105 £26,280 £25,455 £24,630£3,996.33
£23,406.30 £23,805 £22,980
Moderate £33,640 £32,660 £31,700 £30,740 £29,780 £28,820 £27,860 £26,900
£25,372.59 £25,940 £24,980
Severe £36,850 £35,740 £34,645 £33,550
£23,617.56 £32,455 £31,360 £30,265
£29,170 £58,254.81
£28,075 £26,980
Explanatory Notes:
1. The highest figure in red bold (bottom left) is the upper bracket of the 12th edition of the JC Guidelines with the 10% uplift. The lowest award (top right corner)
represents HHJ Inglis’ view in the Nottingham and Derbyshire Deafness Litigation [2007] EWHC B1 (QB) [127] that the lowest award for NIHL was likely to be in the
region of £4,080 (updated to October 2013 with a 10% uplift).
2. It is assumed that awards at the bottom end of the JC bracket will involve cases where (i) the claimant was elderly and likely to have experienced some hearing
loss anyway; and (ii) there was limited hearing loss and no tinnitus. The lower bracket figure of £4,080 is therefore placed in the top right hand corner of the table
(claimants aged 70+ / limited hearing loss and no tinnitus).
3. Conversely, the upper bracket figure of £36,850 occupies the bottom left hand side of the table (claimants aged up to 40 with severe hearing loss and severe
tinnitus).
4. Estimated awards at different severity of symptoms and ages are based on interpolation of the JC Guidelines between the far left and far right columns.
Page 22
5. All estimated figures are shown in bold.
6. We have compared the estimated figures with actual awards (where these exist) (artificially inflated by 10%)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.
Page 23
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
7
8
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
9
7
8
9
4.
Page 24
However, the de minimis argument was only a very small part in what was a complex and lengthy trial. Moreover, the judgment must be placed into the context of arising before the House of Lords’ extensive analysis of the principle of de minimis in the Pleural Plaques Test Litigation, 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
10
11
12
13
14
10
11
12
13
14
Page 25
Hughes demonstrates that de minimis defences can succeed in NIHL claims. The appropriate selection criteria for running a successful de minimis defence are:
4.1015
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 4.5.15
17
Success in running a de minimis defence
Page 26
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.
16
17
18
19
20
16
17
18
191
20
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.
Page 27
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
21
22
23
24
21
22
23
24
Page 28
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.
Page 29
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.
Page 30
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.
25
25
26
26
27
27
Page 31
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
28
29
28
29
Page 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.
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?
30
30
Page 33
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
Page 34
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
Page 35
Appendices
BC LEGALB R I N G I N G C L A R I T Y
BC
Page 35
Page 36
Appendix 1: AAHL according to ISO 7029
BC LEGALB R I N G I N G C L A R I T Y
BC
Page 36
Page 37
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
Page 37
Appendix 2: Ready Reckoner Table of awards by age and severity of symptoms
BC LEGALB R I N G I N G C L A R I T Y
BC
Page 38
Page 39
READY RECKONER TABLE: AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS (WITHOUT 10% UPLIFT)
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
None £5,150 £4,980 £4,825 £6,865.20
£4,665£6,645.78 £8,366.24
£4,505 £4,345 £6,020.55 £4,185 £4,030
£4,359.02 £3,870 £3,710
Slight/ £9,250 £8,820 £8,390 £7,965 £7,535
£6,188.97 £11,685.22
£7,110 £6,680 £6,255 £5,830 £5,400
Mild £11,000 £10,705 £10,410 £7,938.03
£10,115 £6,404.24 £8,227.63 £8,817.18
£9,820 £9,101.69
£9,525£5,362.83 £6,013.83 £7,108.73 £8,538.98
£9,230 £2,142.01 £10,454.02
£8,930 £9,726.94 £8,635 £8,340
Moderate £20,890 £11,066.30 £19,690 £18,490 £17,290
£16,090£12,671.03 £12,860.79
£14,890 £25,678.52
£13,690£10,981.56 £15,380.24
£12,490 £11,290 £14,360.50 £10,090
Severe £33,500 £32,200 £30,900 £29,600 £28,300 £27,000 £25,700 £24,400 £23,100 £21,800
Some
None £6,970 £6,800 £6,640 £8,624.37
£6,480 £6,551.37
£6,325 £5,950.39 £9,055.23
£6,165£6,235.15 £7,370.30 £10,606.95
£6,005 £5,845
£2,470.46 £8,414.31
£5,685 £5,530
Slight/ £10,160 £9,835 £9,510 £9,180
£8,855£6,170.78 £7,094.60 £7,713.47
£8,530 £8,200 £6,815.06 £7,875 £7,545 £7,220
Mild £11,000 £6,038.70
£10,815 £8,363.21 £10,620 £10,425
£10,230 £9,714.45 £9,819.83
£10,030£1,743.86 £6,240.77 £7,942.79 £10,029.20 £10,872.18
£9,835 £6,280.06 £8,374.63
£9,640£7,665.10 £7,942.79 £9,644.82 £10,998.63 £12,881.61
£9,445 £9,250 £5,183.13
Moderate £21,800 £20,600 £19,400 £18,200
£17,000£10,873.40 £12,808.47 £13,718.18 £18,594.23
£15,800£3,150.06 £13,381.10 £16,455.40 £17,402.17
£14,600 £8,380.92 £10,246.78
£13,400 £8,234.86
£12,200 £10,285.06 £11,000
Severe £33,500 £32,310 £32,347.81 £31,110 £29,910 £28,710
£27,510 £20,060.09 £26,357.94
£26,310 £19,733.38 £30,863.26
£25,110 £23,910 £22,710
Page 40
Moderate
None £17,255 £16,455 £15,660 £14,865 £14,070 £13,275
£12,647.70 £19,350.36
£12,480£7,368.03 £15,831.05
£11,680£5,176.03 £5,501.82
£10,885 7,906.47 £10,090
Slight/ £18,770 £17,845 £16,915 £15,980 £15,050 £14,120 £13,185 £12,255 £11,325 £10,390
Mild £20,280 £19,205 £12,378.71 £18,140 £17,080 £16,015
£14,950£8,623.60 £9,007.79 £11,702.17
£13,885 £12,825 £6,129.54 £8,553.09
£11,760 £10,695
Moderate £21,800 £16,065.05 £20,600 £19,400 £18,200
£14,802.89 £17,000 £15,800£18,285 £14,600 £13,400 £12,200 £11,000
Severe £33,500 £32,420 £31,320 £30,220 £29,120 £28,020 £26,920 £25,820 £24,720 £23,620
Severe
None £21,800 £21,290 £20,785 £20,280 £19,780£14,997.36 £19,275 £18,770 £18,265
£3,923.68 £17,760
£16,847.13 £17,255
Slight/ £24,730 £24,090 £23,465 £22,835 £22,210 £21,580 £20,955 £20,330 £19,700 £19,075
Mild £27,655 £26,890 £26,140 £25,390 £24,640 £23,890 £23,140 £22,390£3,633.03 £21,278.45
£21,640 £20,890
Moderate £30,580 £29,690 £28,820 £27,945 £27,075 £26,200 £25,330 £24,455£23,065.99 £23,580 £22,710
Severe £33,500 £32,490 £31,495 £30,500 £21,470.51 £29,505 £28,510 £27,515 £26,520
£52,958.92 £25,523
£14,535.49 £24,530
Explanatory Notes:
1. The highest figure in red bold (bottom left) is the upper bracket of the 12th edition of the JC Guidelines without the 10% uplift. The lowest award (top right corner)
represents HHJ Inglis’ view in the Nottingham and Derbyshire Deafness Litigation [2007] EWHC B1 (QB) [127] that the lowest award for NIHL was likely to be in the
region of £3,710 (updated to October 2013 without the 10% uplift).
2. It is assumed that awards at the bottom end of the JC bracket will involve cases where (i) the claimant was elderly and likely to have experienced some hearing
loss anyway; and (ii) there was limited hearing loss and no tinnitus. The lower bracket figure of £3,710 is therefore placed in the top right hand corner of the table
(claimants aged 70+ / limited hearing loss and no tinnitus).
3. Conversely, the upper bracket figure of £33,500 occupies the bottom left hand side of the table (claimants aged up to 40 with severe hearing loss and severe
tinnitus).
4. Estimated awards at different severity of symptoms and ages are based on interpolation of the JC Guidelines between the far left and far right columns.
5. All estimated figures are shown in bold.
Page 41
6. We have compared the estimated figures with actual awards (where these exist)based again on age / severity of symptoms.
7. Cases not identifying the severity of tinnitus are omitted from this table but appear in the tables of common law awards.
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.
Page 42
READY RECKONER TABLE: AWARDS BY AGE AND SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS (WITH 10% UPLIFT)
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 £5,665 £5,480 £5,305
£7,551.72
£5,130£7,310.36
£9,202.86 £4,955
£4,780 £6,622.61
£4,605 £4,430
£4,794.92 £4,255 £4,080
Slight/ occasional £10,175 £9,700
£9,230 £8,731.83
£8,760 £8,290
£6,807.87
£12,853.74 £7,820 £7,350 £6,880 £6,410 £5,940
Mild £12,100 £11,775 £11,450
£11,125 £7,044.66
£9,050.39
£9,698.90
£10,800 £10,011.86
£10,475£5,899.11
£6,615.21
£7,819.60
£9,392.88
£10,150 £2,356.21
£11,499.42
£9,825 £10,699.63
£9,500 £9,175
Moderate £22,980
£12,172.93 £21,660 £20,340 £19,020
£17,700£13,938.13
£14,146.87
£16,380 £28,246.37
£15,060£12,079.72
£16,918.26 £13,740
£12,420 £15,796.55
£11,100
Severe £36,850 £35,420 £33,990 £32,560 £31,130 £29,700 £28,270 £26,840 £25,410 £23,980
Some (16 to 30 dB)
None £7,665 £7,480 £7,305
£9,486.81 £7,130
£7,206.51
£6,955 £6,545.43
£9,960.75
£6,780£6,858.67
£8,107.33
£11,667.65
£6,605 £6,430
£2,717.51
£9,255.74 £6,255 £6,080
Slight/ occasional £11,175 £10,820 £10,460 £10,100
£9,740£6,787.86
£7,804.06
£8,484.82
£9,380 £9,020
£7,496.57 £8,660 £8,300 £7,940
Mild £12,100 £6,642.57
£11,895 £9,199.53
£11,680 £11,465 £11,250
£10,685.90
£10,801.81
£11,035 £1,918.25
£6,864.85
£8,737.07
£11,032.12
£11,959.40
£10,820 £6,908.07
£9,212.09
£10,605£8,431.61
£8,737.07
£10,609.30
£12,098.49
£14,169.77
£10,390 £10,175 £5,701.44
Moderate £23,980 £22,660 £21,340 £20,020
£18,700£11,960.74
£14,089.32
£15,090.00
£20,453.65
£17,380£3,465.07
£14,719.21
£18,100.94
£19,142.39
£16,060 £9,219.01
£11,271.46
£14,740 £9,058.35
£13,420 £11,313.57
£12,100
Page 43
Severe £36,850 £35,540
£35,582.59 £34,220 £32,900 £31,580
£30,260£22,066.10
£28,993.73
£28,940£21,706.72
£33,949.59 £27,620 £26,300.00 £24,980
Moderate (31 to 45 dB)
None £18,980 £18,100 £17,225 £16,350 £15,475 £14,600
£13,912.47
£21,285.40
£13,725£8,104.83
£17,414.16
£12,850£5,693.63
£6,052.00
£11,975 £8,697.12
£11,100
Slight/occasional £20,645 £19,630 £18,605 £17,580 £16,555 £15,530 £14,505 £13,480 £12,455 £11,430
Mild £22,310 £21,125
£13,616.58 £19,955 £18,785 £17,615
£16,445£9,485.96
£9,908.57
£12,872.39
£15,275 £14,105 £6,742.49
£9,408.40 £12,935 £11,765
Moderate £23,980
£17,671.56 £22,660 £21,340
£20,020£16,283.18
£18,700 £17,380
£20,113.50 £16,060 £14,740 £13,420 £12,100
Severe £36,850 £35,660 £34,450 £33,240 £32,030 £30,820 £29,610 £28,400 £27,190 £25,980
Severe (46+ dB)
None £23,980 £23,420 £22,865 £22,310 £21,755
£16,497.10 £21,200 £20,645
£20,090£4,316.05
£19,535£18,531.84
£18,980
Slight/occasional £27,200 £26,500 £25,810 £25,120 £24,430 £23,740 £23,050 £22,360 £21,670 £20,980
Mild £30,420 £29,580 £28,755 £27,930 £27,105 £26,280 £25,455 £24,630£3,996.33
£23,406.30 £23,805 £22,980
Moderate £33,640 £32,660 £31,700 £30,740 £29,780 £28,820 £27,860 £26,900
£25,372.59 £25,940 £24,980
Severe £36,850 £35,740 £34,645 £33,550
£23,617.56 £32,455 £31,360 £30,265
£29,170 £58,254.81
£28,075 £26,980
Explanatory Notes:
1. The highest figure in red bold (bottom left) is the upper bracket of the 12th edition of the JC Guidelines with the 10% uplift. The lowest award (top right corner)
represents HHJ Inglis’ view in the Nottingham and Derbyshire Deafness Litigation [2007] EWHC B1 (QB) [127] that the lowest award for NIHL was likely to be in the
region of £4,080 (updated to October 2013 with a 10% uplift).
2. It is assumed that awards at the bottom end of the JC bracket will involve cases where (i) the claimant was elderly and likely to have experienced some hearing
loss anyway; and (ii) there was limited hearing loss and no tinnitus. The lower bracket figure of £4,080 is therefore placed in the top right hand corner of the table
(claimants aged 70+ / limited hearing loss and no tinnitus).
3. Conversely, the upper bracket figure of £36,850 occupies the bottom left hand side of the table (claimants aged up to 40 with severe hearing loss and severe
tinnitus).
4. Estimated awards at different severity of symptoms and ages are based on interpolation of the JC Guidelines between the far left and far right columns.
Page 44
5. All estimated figures are shown in bold.
6. We have compared the estimated figures with actual awards (where these exist) (artificially inflated by 10%)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.
Page 38
Appendix 3: PSLA awards by award size
BC LEGALB R I N G I N G C L A R I T Y
BC
Page 45
Page 46
APPENDIX 3: PSLA AWARDS BY AWARD SIZE
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
£1,743.86 55 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
23‐30dB. MILD TINNITUS.
WAGGOTT v SWAN HUNTER
SHIPBUILDERS LTD (1983); LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0502288
£2,142.01 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
£2,470.46 63 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
20‐42dB. NO TINNITUS.
BLACKLOCK v SWAN HUNTER
SHIPBUILDERS LTD (1983); LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0500001
£2,470.46 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
£2,615.78 61 VERY SLIGHT HEARING LOSS. 17‐
35dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
MITCHELL v VICKERS ARMSTRONG
LTD AND ANOTHER (1983); LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0501533
£3,150.06 54
C SUSTAINED HIGH FREQUENCY
SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS.
MEDICAL REPORTS SUGGEST C
HAD SUSTAINED 20dB OF NOISE
INDUCED HEARING LOSS.
C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE
TINNITUS.
WHALLEY v BAKER PERKINS LTD
(2012); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0202015
£3,633.03 63 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 57‐
68dB. MILD TINNITUS.
GRAY v SMITH’s SHIP REPAIRERS
(NORTH SHIELDS) LTD, NOVEMBER
Page 47
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
1983; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500877
£3,923.68 62 HEARING LOSS OF 52‐57dB. NO TINNITUS.
THOMPSON & ORS v SMITH’s SHIP
REPAIRERS (NORTH SHIELDS) LTD
(1983); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0502199
£4,359.02 61 MODEST HEARING LOSS OF 9.2 dB
OVER 1,2 AND 3 kHz. NO TINNITUS
ALDRED V CORTAULDS NORTHERN
TEXTILES LTD (2012); LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0505291
£5,176.03 62 MILD NOISE INDUCED HEARING
LOSS OF 36dB. NO TINNITUS.
GALLAGHER v FORD MOTOR CO.
(1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505252
£5,183.13 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
£5,362.83 54
C EXPERIENCED MILD HEARING
LOSS, HIS BINAURAL IMPAIRMENT
BEING 9.3dB AT 1, 2 AND 3 kHz. C
ALSO SUFFERED FROM
HYPERACUSIS.
C DID SUFFER FROM OCCASIONAL
MILD TINNITUS.
KEARNEY v CALSONIC LLANELLI
RADIATORS LIMITED (1998); LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0501230
£5,501.82 61 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
32dB. NO TINNITUS.
DAVIES (AJ) v FORD MOTOR CO, JULY
1997; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
Page 48
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
AM0505250
£5,673.42 48 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
16dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
MUSTAFA v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989, LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0501604
£5,823.03 56 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
19dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
PHILLIPS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505251
£5,950.39 46 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
17dB. NO TINNITUS.
CARDY v FORD MOTOR CO, ARIL
1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500346
£6,013.83 54 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
15dB. MILD TINNITUS.
GREENIDGE v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500890
£6,020.55 54 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
15dB. NO TINNITUS.
DAVIES v CALSONIC LLANELLI
RADIATORS LTD, MAY 1997; LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0500535
£6,038.70 30
NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
30dB AND HAD SOME DIFFICULTY
PICKING UP CONVERSATION.
C SUFFERED FROM INTERMITTENT
MILD TINNITUS WHICH CEASED
AFTER RETIREMENT.
SWARBRICK v FORD MOTOR CO.
(1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505249
£6,129.54 61 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
32dB. MILD TINNITUS.
McAFFERTY v RECEIVER FOR
METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT,
JUNE 1975*
£6,170.78 48 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
20dB.
TINNITUS, NOISE IN THE EARS FOR
AN HOUR IF EXPOSED TO NOISE AT
WORK.
CLARK v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL
1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500404
£6,142.29 50 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF SLIGHT TINNITUS. HHJ INGLIS NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND
Page 49
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
10‐20 dB AT 4 kHz. SUGGESTED THAT THE MINIMUM NIHL AWARD IS LIKELY TO BE £3000 (3,720.83 (UPDATED OCTOBER 2013))
WITHOUT TINNITUS. IF THERE IS SLIGHT TINNITUS, WHICH IS A
NUISANCE TO THE CLAIMANT, IT WILL BE AT LEAST £2000 (£2,480.55 (UPDATED OCTOBER 2013) MORE.
DERBYSHIRE DEAFNESS LITIGATION [2007] EWHC B1 (QB) [127]; BAKER V
QUANTUM CLOTHING GROUP LIMITED [2011] UKSC 17 [6]*
£6,235.15 55 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
24dB. NO TINNITUS.
TONG v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505247
£6,240.77 52 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
16dB. MILD TINNITUS.
BYGRAVES v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500299
£6,240.77 60 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
17dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
LINDO v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY
1989
£6,280.06 59
C SUSTAINED BILATERAL
SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS
OF 23dB over 1, 2 and 3 kHz
C DID SUFFER FROM MILD TINNITUS.
COOTE v (1) RF BROOKES LTD (2) G
COSTA & CO. LTD (2009); LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0201928
£6,404.24 43 SLIGHT HEARING LOSS OF 13dB.
C SUFFERED FROM MILD TINNITUS
UP TO 3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK, EACH
OCCASION LASTING AROUND A
MINUTE.
TRUMAN v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505248
£6,470.03 62
NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
24dB CAUSES C TO MISS PARTS OF
CONVERSATION AND TELEVISION
TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. FELLOWS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505246
Page 50
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
DIALOGUE.
£6,470.03 64 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
22dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
BROOKS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994);
LAWTEL REPORT AM0505245
£6,551.37 45 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
21 dB. NO TINNITUS.
JENKINS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996);
AM0505244
£6,611.55 56 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
20dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
ABRAHAM v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL
1989, LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0503817
£6,645.78 43 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
12.5dB. NO TINNITUS.
FAULKNER v BRITISH RAIL ENG LTD,
JUNE 1983*
£6,808.11 53 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
22dB TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
JOSEPH v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0501206
£6,815.06 58 NOISE INDUCED HEARING 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
£6,865.20 36
C SUSTAINED BILATERAL
SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS
OF 11.9dB.
C DID NOT SUFFER FROM TINNITUS. MILLER v ARGOS LTD (2011); LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0201918
£7,094.60 47 MILD TO MODERATE NOISE
INDUCED HEARING LOSS of 16dB. SLIGHT INTERMITTENT TINNITUS.
HOLMES v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505241
£7,094.60 48 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
32dB.
TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
HIGHER AWARD FOR YOUNG
D L DAVIES v FORD MOTOR CO.
(1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
Page 51
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
CLAIMANT WHOSE MAIN INTEREST
AND RECREATION IS LISTENING TO
CLASSICAL MUSIC.
AM0505242
£7,108.73 51 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
15dB. MILD TINNITUS.
THOMAS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505240
£7,368.03 57 C SUFFERED FROM FAIRLY SEVERE
HEARING LOSS OF 32dB. NO TINNITUS.
MATHEWS v FORD MOTOR CO.
(1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505239
£7,375.45 58 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
20dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
BROWN v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500253
£7,370.30 53 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
15.3dB. NO TINNITUS. FRY v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1996*
£7,665.10 61 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
20dB.
MILD TINNITUS INTERMITTENT IN
LEFT EAR ONLY.
RICHARDS v FORD MOTOR CO.
(1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505238
£7,713.47 47 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
27dB.
OCCASIONAL INSIGNIFICANT
TINNITUS.
BARNES v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL
1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500121
£7,906.47 68 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
38dB. NO TINNITUS.
AMOS v CALOR GAS LTD, SEPTEMBER
1997; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500045
£7,938.03 36
C SUSTAINED BILATERAL
SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS
OF 11.4dB.
C DID SUFFER FROM MILD TINNITUS. BRAMLEY v ARGOS LTD (2011);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201935
Page 52
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
£7,942.79 48 VERY SUBSTANTIAL HEARING LOSS
WAS SUSTAINED BY C. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
HOLDER v FORD MOTOR CO. (1989);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501058
£7,942.79 51 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
23dB. MILD TINNITUS
DUBAR v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500624
£7,942.79 61 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
22dB. MILD TINNITUS.
DRISCOLL v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500621
£8,234.86 62 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
27dB.
C SUFFERED FROM CONTINUOUS
LEFT SIDED TINNITUS AND
EXTREMELY INTERMITTENT RIGHT
SIDED MODERATE TINNITUS.
PRITCHARD v FORD MOTOR CO.
(1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505237
£8,227.63 44 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
15dB. VERY MILD TINNITUS.
BLAIZE v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE
1988*
£8,363.21 33 MILD NOISE INDUCED HEARING
LOSS OF 20dB.
C SUFFERED FROM INTERMITTENT
MILD TINNITUS WHICH WAS SHORT‐
LIVED.
POWELL v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505235
£8,366.24 42 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
13.3dB. NO TINNITUS.
LEWIS v BTR PLC., MAY 1999;
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501338
£8,374.63 57 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
29dB. MILD TINNITUS.
FIELD v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL
1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500730
£8,380.92 57 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
19dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
HAYES v FORD MOTOR CO,
NOVEMBER 1995*
£8,414.31 62 C EXPERIENCED BINAURAL NO TINNITUS WAS SUFFERED. DEW v BRITISH
Page 53
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
HEARING LOSS OF 20dB OVER 1,2
AND 3Khz.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC (2012);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201945
£8,538.98 52 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
12 dB.
C SUFFERED FROM A CONSTANT
MILD TINNITUS IN LEFT EAR
HOWEVER IT DID NOT HAVE A
DRAMATIC EFFECT ON C’s LIFE.
PUXLEY v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505236
£8,553.09 65 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
31.77 dB. MILD TINNITUS. MUNRO v MOD, JUNE 1985*
£8,623.60 53 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
33dB. MILD TINNITUS.
ST ROMAINE v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0502081
£8,624.37 36 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
18dB. NO TINNITUS.
PYBIS v LIVERPOOL CORP, JUNE
1987*
£8,817.18 45
C EXPERIENCED NOISE INDUCED
DEAFNESS OF 7.5dB AT 1, 2 and
3kHz DUE TO NOISE EXPOSURE.
C EXPERIENCED MILD TINNITUS 2‐3
TIMES A DAY, EACH BURST LASTING
AROUND 20‐25 MINUTES.
WARD v JELD WEN UK LTD (2004);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0503618
£9,007.79 51 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)*
£9,055.23 46 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
25.6dB. NO TINNITUS.
EARLAM v HEPWORTH HEATING LTD,
JUNE 1996; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500650
£9,101.69 49 MODERATE NOISE INDUCED
HEARING LOSS OF 10dB.
C SUFFERED FROM BILATERAL
INTERMITTENT MILD TINNITUS
WHICH AFFECTED THE CLAIMANT’s
HARRY v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505234
Page 54
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
SLEEP.
£9,366.36 33 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
14dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT REPORTED.
BRENT v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL
1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500234
£9,644.82 63 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
25dB MILD TINNITUS
WRIGHT v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0502429
£9,714.45 49 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
20dB. MILD TINNITUS.
BULLER v AUSTIN ROVER GROUP,
JULY 1995; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500276
£9,726.94 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)*
£9,819.83 50 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS of
20dB.
C SUSTAINED INTERMITTENT
MILD/MODERATE TINNITUS WHICH
AFFECTED HIM.
BARNETT v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505233
£9,917.32 58 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
20dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
GREEN v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL
(1989); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500881
£10,029.20 54 NOISE INDUCED HEARING 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
£10,246.78 59 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE T B DAVIES v FORD MOTOR CO.
Page 55
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
23dB. TINNITUS WHICH CONSISTED OF A
BUZZING IN ONE OR BOTH EARS
OCCURRING 10‐12 TIMES A DAY,
APPROXIMATELY LASTING 2‐3
MINUTES.
(1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505232
£10,285.06 67 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
26.6dB MODERATE TINNITUS. NEIL v UEC INDUSTRIES, JUNE 2000*
£10,454.02 60 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
13dB.
C SUFFERED FROM INTERMITTENT
MILD TINNITUS 3 OR 4 TIMES A DAY
FOR AROUND 3 TO 4 MINUTES ON
EACH OCCASION. ADDITIONALLY C’s
SLEEP WAS INTERRUPTED FOR
AROUND 15 MINUTES.
D T W DAVIES v FORD MOTOR
COMPANY (1995); LAWTEL REPORT
NO. AMO5O5230
£10,606.95 55 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
23.3dB. NO TINNITUS.
HOBSON v TANQUERAY GORDON
LTD, MARCH 1983; LAWTEL REPORT
NO. AM1747168
£10,872.18 52 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
25dB.
C SUFFERED FROM MILD
INTERMITTENT TINNITUS.
WADE v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505229
£10,873.40 49 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 20
dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
STEPHENS v CALSONIC LLANELLI
RADIATORS LTD, JUNE 1995*
£10,981.56 56 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 9dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
JONES v CALSONIC LLANELLI
RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995;
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501188
£10,998.63 63 C SUFFERED NOISE INDUCED
HEARING LOSS OF 28.85dB OVER
C ALSO SUFFERED FROM MILD
TINNITUS.
SQUIRES v CORUS (2006); LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0201050
Page 56
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
1, 2 AND 3kHz.
£11,066.30 29 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
8.6dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
KAY v IW COOK (WIVENHOE) LTD,
JUNE 1987*
£11,685.22 48 SLIGHT NEUROSENSORY HEARING
LOSS OF 15dB.
SLIGHT TINNITUS WHICH DEVELOPED
INTO A CONSTANT BUZZING.
TUCKER v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505227
£11,702.17 55
C SUFFERED FROM VERY
SIGNIFICANT HEARING LOSS OF
33dB WHICH CAUSED SEVERE
INCONVENIENCE TO C’s
ENJOYMENT.
C SUSTAINED CONTINUOUS MILD
TINNITUS WHICH AFFECTS THE
CLAIMANT’s SLEEP.
MASON v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505228
£12,153.13 74 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 6.3
dB.
TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. IF NO TINNITUS AWARD WOULD
HAVE BEEN £5,208.49.
PATEL V AKZO NOBEL LIMITED (UNREPORTED, BLACKPOOL COUNTY
COURT, 08/08/2008)
£12,378.71 33 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
35dB. MILD TINNITUS.
ROLLINSON v THOMAS C WILD LTD,
JUNE 1979*
£12,647.70 55 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
32.7dB. NO TINNITUS.
CASE v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1990;
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505280
£12,671.03 46 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
12.7dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
EVANS v CALSONIC LLANELLI
RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995;
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500686
£12,808.47 46 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
17dB.
C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE
TINNITUS WHICH CAUSES C
IRRITATION AND ANNOYANCE AS
WELL AS AFFECTING SLEEP.
WITHERS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505225
£12,860.79 49 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF C SUFFERED FROM A CONSTANT R P PUGH v FORD MOTOR CO.
Page 57
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
15dB. RIGHT SIDED MODERATE TINNITUS. (1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505226
£12,881.61 63 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
28.8dB. MILD TINNITUS.
ELLIOT v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE
1990*
£13,381.10 51 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
17dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
READ v BRITISH RAIL BOARD,
OCTOBER 1997*
£13,718.18 46 NOISE INDUCED HEARING 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
£14,026.69 44
C SUFFERED FROM
SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS
ON ONE SIDE AS WELL AS
OTOSCLEROSIS.
NO TINNITUS.
HOEY v BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION
(1991); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0501056
£14,360.50 66 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
13dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
MORRIS v CALSONIC LLANELLI
RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995
£14,535.49 68 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
55.5dB. SEVERE TINNITUS.
WARNE v OCTAVIUS HUNT LTD,
JANUARY 2002; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0502849
£14,802.89 43
SIGNIFICANT NOISE INDUCED
HEARING LOSS OF 38dB AT
HIGHER FREQUENCIES.
C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE
TINNITUS.
HURLOW v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505223
£14,997.36 50 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
49dB. NO TINNITUS.
BERRY v STONE MANGANESE,
DECEMBER 1971*
£15,380.24 56 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE RADFORD v FORD MOTOR CO.
Page 58
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
14dB. TINNITUS. C FOUND THAT READING
REQUIRED EXTRA EFFORT.
(1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505222
£15,831.05 58 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
39.74dB. NO TINNITUS.
BIXBY v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE
1990; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505278
£16,065.05 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
£16,455.40 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
£16,847.13 66 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
78.3dB. NO TINNITUS. SMITH v BRITISH RAIL, JUNE 1980
£17,402.17 54 NOISE INDUCED HEARING 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
£18,285.42 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
Page 59
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
£18,594.23 48 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
18dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
MEYRICK v AUSTIN ROVER GROUP,
JULY 1995*
£19,350.36 55 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
40dB. NO TINNITUS.
ROBINSON v BRITISH RAIL, JUNE
1981*
£19,669.77 57 C SUFFERED FROM PERMANENT
HEARING LOSS. C ALSO SUFFERED FROM TINNITUS.
BARRY JOHN CLARK v TRELLEBORG
(2006); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0201039
£19,733.38 56 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
24dB. SEVERE TINNITUS.
OWENS v EXPESS GROUP, JANUARY
1991; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM1763626
£20,060.09 54 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
24dB. SEVERE TINNITUS.
EDWARDS (ALFRED) v MOD, JUNE
1982
£20,503.22 47
C SUSTAINED SIGNIFICANT
PERMANENT LOSS OF HEARING
WHICH AFFECTED HIS PERSONAL
LIFE.
C ALSO SUFFERED FROM MODERATE
TINNITUS.
BRAGG v FORD MOTOR CO. (1992);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500224
£21,278.45 61 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
55.4dB. MILD TINNITUS. IRONS v MOD, JUNE 1984*
£21,470.51 42 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
48.98dB. SEVERE TINNITUS.
ROBINSON v BRITISH GAS,
NOVEMBER 1989; LAWTEL REPORT
NO. AM1763532
£23,065.99 65 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 56‐
60dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
TRIPP v MOD, DECEMBER 1982;
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM1748777
£25,678.52 52 C SUFFERED FROM PERMANENT
HEARING LOSS OF
C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE
TINNITUS.
HILLMAN v C & J CLARK
INTERNATIONAL LTD (2006); LAWTEL
Page 60
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
APPROXIMATELY 9dB AND HAD
TO WEAR HEARING AIDS FROM
2003.
REPORT NO. AM0201085
£26,357.94 54 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
27.5dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. HESLOP v METALOCK, JUNE 1981*
£30,863.26 56 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
29.33dB. SEVERE TINNITUS.
HILL v ARC (SOUTH WALES) LTD, JULY
1998; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0501031
£32,347.81 35 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 15‐
18dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. BAILEY v ICI Ltd, JUNE 1979*
£52,958.92 65 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
76.6dB. SEVERE TINNITUS.
ABRAMOWICZ v CASBORUNDUM CO
LTD, JUNE 1981*
* Not available on Lawtel.
Page 39
Appendix 4: PSLA awards by age
BC LEGALB R I N G I N G C L A R I T Y
BC
Page 61
Page 62
APPENDIX 4: PSLA AWARDS BY AGE
Updated
PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
£16,065.05 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
£11,066.30 29 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
8.6dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
KAY v IW COOK (WIVENHOE) LTD,
JUNE 1987*
£6,038.70 30
NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
30dB AND HAD SOME DIFFICULTY
PICKING UP CONVERSATION.
C SUFFERED FROM INTERMITTENT
MILD TINNITUS WHICH CEASED
AFTER RETIREMENT.
SWARBRICK v FORD MOTOR CO.
(1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505249
£8,363.21 33 MILD NOISE INDUCED HEARING
LOSS OF 20dB.
C SUFFERED FROM INTERMITTENT
MILD TINNITUS WHICH WAS SHORT‐
LIVED.
POWELL v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505235
£9,366.36 33 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
14dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT REPORTED.
BRENT v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL
1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500234
£12,378.71 33 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
35dB. MILD TINNITUS.
ROLLINSON v THOMAS C WILD LTD,
JUNE 1979*
£32,347.81 35 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 15‐
18dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. BAILEY v ICI Ltd, JUNE 1979*
£6,865.20 36
C SUSTAINED BILATERAL
SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS
OF 11.9dB.
C DID NOT SUFFER FROM TINNITUS. MILLER v ARGOS LTD (2011); LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0201918
£7,938.03 36 C SUSTAINED BILATERAL
SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS C DID SUFFER FROM MILD TINNITUS.
BRAMLEY v ARGOS LTD (2011);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0201935
Page 63
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
OF 11.4dB.
£8,624.37 36 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
18dB. NO TINNITUS.
PYBIS v LIVERPOOL CORP, JUNE
1987*
£8,366.24 42 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
13.3dB. NO TINNITUS.
LEWIS v BTR PLC., MAY 1999;
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501338
£21,470.51 42 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
48.98dB. SEVERE TINNITUS.
ROBINSON v BRITISH GAS,
NOVEMBER 1989; LAWTEL REPORT
NO. AM1763532
£6,404.24 43 SLIGHT HEARING LOSS OF 13dB.
C SUFFERED FROM MILD TINNITUS
UP TO 3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK, EACH
OCCASION LASTING AROUND A
MINUTE.
TRUMAN v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505248
£6,645.78 43 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
12.5dB. NO TINNITUS.
FAULKNER v BRITISH RAIL ENG LTD,
JUNE 1983*
£14,802.89 43
SIGNIFICANT NOISE INDUCED
HEARING LOSS OF 38dB AT
HIGHER FREQUENCIES.
C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE
TINNITUS.
HURLOW v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505223
£8,227.63 44 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
15dB. VERY MILD TINNITUS.
BLAIZE v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE
1988*
£14,026.69 44
C SUFFERED FROM
SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS
ON ONE SIDE AS WELL AS
OTOSCLEROSIS.
NO TINNITUS.
HOEY v BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION
(1991); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0501056
£6,551.37 45 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
21 dB. NO TINNITUS.
JENKINS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996);
AM0505244
Page 64
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
£8,817.18 45
C EXPERIENCED NOISE INDUCED
DEAFNESS OF 7.5dB AT 1, 2 and
3kHz DUE TO NOISE EXPOSURE.
C EXPERIENCED MILD TINNITUS 2‐3
TIMES A DAY, EACH BURST LASTING
AROUND 20‐25 MINUTES.
WARD v JELD WEN UK LTD (2004);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0503618
£5,950.39 46 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
17dB. NO TINNITUS.
CARDY v FORD MOTOR CO, ARIL
1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500346
£9,055.23 46 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
25.6dB. NO TINNITUS.
EARLAM v HEPWORTH HEATING LTD,
JUNE 1996; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500650
£12,671.03 46 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
12.7dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
EVANS v CALSONIC LLANELLI
RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995;
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500686
£12,808.47 46 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
17dB.
C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE
TINNITUS WHICH CAUSES C
IRRITATION AND ANNOYANCE AS
WELL AS AFFECTING SLEEP.
WITHERS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505225
£13,718.18 46 NOISE INDUCED HEARING 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
£7,094.60 47 MILD TO MODERATE NOISE
INDUCED HEARING LOSS of 16dB. SLIGHT INTERMITTENT TINNITUS.
HOLMES v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505241
£7,713.47 47 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
27dB.
OCCASIONAL INSIGNIFICANT
TINNITUS.
BARNES v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL
1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500121
Page 65
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
£20,503.22 47
C SUSTAINED SIGNIFICANT
PERMANENT LOSS OF HEARING
WHICH AFFECTED HIS PERSONAL
LIFE.
C ALSO SUFFERED FROM MODERATE
TINNITUS.
BRAGG v FORD MOTOR CO. (1992);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0500224
£5,673.42 48 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
16dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
MUSTAFA v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989, LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0501604
£6,170.78 48 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
20dB.
TINNITUS, NOISE IN THE EARS FOR
AN HOUR IF EXPOSED TO NOISE AT
WORK.
CLARK v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL
1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500404
£7,094.60 48 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
32dB.
TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
HIGHER AWARD FOR YOUNG
CLAIMANT WHOSE MAIN INTEREST
AND RECREATION IS LISTENING TO
CLASSICAL MUSIC.
D L DAVIES v FORD MOTOR CO.
(1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505242
£7,942.79 48 VERY SUBSTANTIAL HEARING LOSS
WAS SUSTAINED BY C. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
HOLDER v FORD MOTOR CO. (1989);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501058
£11,685.22 48 SLIGHT NEUROSENSORY HEARING
LOSS OF 15dB.
SLIGHT TINNITUS WHICH DEVELOPED
INTO A CONSTANT BUZZING.
TUCKER v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505227
£18,594.23 48 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
18dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
MEYRICK v AUSTIN ROVER GROUP,
JULY 1995*
£9,101.69 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
Page 66
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
£9,714.45 49 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
20dB. MILD TINNITUS.
BULLER v AUSTIN ROVER GROUP,
JULY 1995; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500276
£10,873.40 49 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 20
dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
STEPHENS v CALSONIC LLANELLI
RADIATORS LTD, JUNE 1995*
£12,860.79 49 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
15dB.
C SUFFERED FROM A CONSTANT
RIGHT SIDED MODERATE TINNITUS.
R P PUGH v FORD MOTOR CO.
(1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505226
£6,188.97 50 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
10‐20 dB AT 4 kHz.
SLIGHT TINNITUS. HHJ INGLIS SUGGESTED THAT THE MINIMUM NIHL AWARD IS LIKELY TO BE £3000 (3,720.83 (UPDATED OCTOBER 2013))
WITHOUT TINNITUS. IF THERE IS SLIGHT TINNITUS, WHICH IS A
NUISANCE TO THE CLAIMANT, IT WILL BE AT LEAST £2000 (£2,480.55 (UPDATED OCTOBER 2013) MORE.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE DEAFNESS LITIGATION [2007] EWHC B1 (QB) [127]; BAKER V
QUANTUM CLOTHING GROUP LIMITED [2011] UKSC 17 [6]*
£9,819.83 50 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS of
20dB.
C SUSTAINED INTERMITTENT
MILD/MODERATE TINNITUS WHICH
AFFECTED HIM.
BARNETT v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505233
£14,997.36 50 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
49dB. NO TINNITUS.
BERRY v STONE MANGANESE,
DECEMBER 1971*
£7,108.73 51 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
15dB. MILD TINNITUS.
THOMAS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505240
£7,942.79 51 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF MILD TINNITUS DUBAR v FORD MOTOR CO,
Page 67
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
23dB. JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500624
£9,007.79 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)*
£13,381.10 51 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
17dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
READ v BRITISH RAIL BOARD,
OCTOBER 1997*
£6,240.77 52 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
16dB. MILD TINNITUS.
BYGRAVES v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500299
£8,538.98 52 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
12 dB.
C SUFFERED FROM A CONSTANT
MILD TINNITUS IN LEFT EAR
HOWEVER IT DID NOT HAVE A
DRAMATIC EFFECT ON C’s LIFE.
PUXLEY v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505236
£10,872.18 52 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
25dB.
C SUFFERED FROM MILD
INTERMITTENT TINNITUS.
WADE v FORD MOTOR CO. (1995);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505229
£18,285.42 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
£25,678.52 52
C SUFFERED FROM PERMANENT
HEARING LOSS OF
APPROXIMATELY 9dB AND HAD
TO WEAR HEARING AIDS FROM
C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE
TINNITUS.
HILLMAN v C & J CLARK
INTERNATIONAL LTD (2006); LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0201085
Page 68
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
2003.
£6,808.11 53 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
22dB TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
JOSEPH v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0501206
£7,370.30 53 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
15.3dB. NO TINNITUS. FRY v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1996*
£8,623.60 53 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
33dB. MILD TINNITUS.
ST ROMAINE v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0502081
£16,455.40 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
£3,150.06 54
C SUSTAINED HIGH FREQUENCY
SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS.
MEDICAL REPORTS SUGGEST C
HAD SUSTAINED 20dB OF NOISE
INDUCED HEARING LOSS.
C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE
TINNITUS.
WHALLEY v BAKER PERKINS LTD
(2012); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0202015
£5,362.83 54
C EXPERIENCED MILD HEARING
LOSS, HIS BINAURAL IMPAIRMENT
BEING 9.3dB AT 1, 2 AND 3 kHz. C
ALSO SUFFERED FROM
HYPERACUSIS.
C DID SUFFER FROM OCCASIONAL
MILD TINNITUS.
KEARNEY v CALSONIC LLANELLI
RADIATORS LIMITED (1998); LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0501230
Page 69
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
£6,013.83 54 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
15dB. MILD TINNITUS.
GREENIDGE v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500890
£6,020.55 54 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
15dB. NO TINNITUS.
DAVIES v CALSONIC LLANELLI
RADIATORS LTD, MAY 1997; LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0500535
£10,029.20 54 NOISE INDUCED HEARING 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
£17,402.17 54 NOISE INDUCED HEARING 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
£20,060.09 54 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
24dB. SEVERE TINNITUS.
EDWARDS (ALFRED) v MOD, JUNE
1982
£26,357.94 54 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
27.5dB. SEVERE TINNITUS. HESLOP v METALOCK, JUNE 1981*
£1,743.86 55 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
23‐30dB. MILD TINNITUS.
WAGGOTT v SWAN HUNTER
SHIPBUILDERS LTD (1983); LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0502288
£6,235.15 55 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
24dB. NO TINNITUS.
TONG v FORD MOTOR CO. (1996);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505247
£10,606.95 55 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
23.3dB. NO TINNITUS.
HOBSON v TANQUERAY GORDON
LTD, MARCH 1983; LAWTEL REPORT
Page 70
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
NO. AM1747168
£11,702.17 55
C SUFFERED FROM VERY
SIGNIFICANT HEARING LOSS OF
33dB WHICH CAUSED SEVERE
INCONVENIENCE TO C’s
ENJOYMENT.
C SUSTAINED CONTINUOUS MILD
TINNITUS WHICH AFFECTS THE
CLAIMANT’s SLEEP.
MASON v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505228
£12,647.70 55 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
32.7dB. NO TINNITUS.
CASE v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE 1990;
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505280
£19,350.36 55 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
40dB. NO TINNITUS.
ROBINSON v BRITISH RAIL, JUNE
1981*
£5,823.03 56 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
19dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
PHILLIPS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505251
£6,611.55 56 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
20dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
ABRAHAM v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL
1989, LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0503817
£10,981.56 56 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 9dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
JONES v CALSONIC LLANELLI
RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995;
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0501188
£15,380.24 56 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
14dB.
C SUFFERED FROM MODERATE
TINNITUS. C FOUND THAT READING
REQUIRED EXTRA EFFORT.
RADFORD v FORD MOTOR CO.
(1995); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505222
£19,733.38 56 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
24dB. SEVERE TINNITUS.
OWENS v EXPESS GROUP, JANUARY
1991; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM1763626
£30,863.26 56 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF SEVERE TINNITUS. HILL v ARC (SOUTH WALES) LTD, JULY
Page 71
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
29.33dB. 1998; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0501031
£7,368.03 57 C SUFFERED FROM FAIRLY SEVERE
HEARING LOSS OF 32dB. NO TINNITUS.
MATHEWS v FORD MOTOR CO.
(1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505239
£8,374.63 57 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
29dB. MILD TINNITUS.
FIELD v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL
1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500730
£8,380.92 57 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
19dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
HAYES v FORD MOTOR CO,
NOVEMBER 1995*
£19,669.77 57 C SUFFERED FROM PERMANENT
HEARING LOSS. C ALSO SUFFERED FROM TINNITUS.
BARRY JOHN CLARK v TRELLEBORG
(2006); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0201039
£6,815.06 58 NOISE INDUCED HEARING 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
£7,375.45 58 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
20dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
BROWN v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500253
£9,917.32 58 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
20dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
GREEN v FORD MOTOR CO, APRIL
(1989); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500881
£15,831.05 58 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF NO TINNITUS. BIXBY v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE
Page 72
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
39.74dB. 1990; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505278
£2,142.01 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
£6,280.06 59
C SUSTAINED BILATERAL
SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS
OF 23dB over 1, 2 and 3 kHz
C DID SUFFER FROM MILD TINNITUS.
COOTE v (1) RF BROOKES LTD (2) G
COSTA & CO. LTD (2009); LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0201928
£10,246.78 59 NOISE INDUCED HEARING 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
£6,240.77 60 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
17dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
LINDO v FORD MOTOR CO, JANUARY
1989
£10,454.02 60 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
13dB.
C SUFFERED FROM INTERMITTENT
MILD TINNITUS 3 OR 4 TIMES A DAY
FOR AROUND 3 TO 4 MINUTES ON
EACH OCCASION. ADDITIONALLY C’s
SLEEP WAS INTERRUPTED FOR
AROUND 15 MINUTES.
D T W DAVIES v FORD MOTOR
COMPANY (1995); LAWTEL REPORT
NO. AMO5O5230
£2,615.78 61 VERY SLIGHT HEARING LOSS. 17‐
35dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
MITCHELL v VICKERS ARMSTRONG
LTD AND ANOTHER (1983); LAWTEL
Page 73
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
REPORT NO. AM0501533
£4,359.02 61 MODEST HEARING LOSS OF 9.2 dB
OVER 1,2 AND 3 kHz. NO TINNITUS
ALDRED V CORTAULDS NORTHERN
TEXTILES LTD (2012); LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0505291
£5,501.82 61 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
32dB. NO TINNITUS.
DAVIES (AJ) v FORD MOTOR CO, JULY
1997; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505250
£6,129.54 61 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
32dB. MILD TINNITUS.
McAFFERTY v RECEIVER FOR
METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT,
JUNE 1975*
£7,665.10 61 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
20dB.
MILD TINNITUS INTERMITTENT IN
LEFT EAR ONLY.
RICHARDS v FORD MOTOR CO.
(1996); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505238
£7,942.79 61 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
22dB. MILD TINNITUS.
DRISCOLL v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500621
£21,278.45 61 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
55.4dB. MILD TINNITUS. IRONS v MOD, JUNE 1984*
£3,923.68 62 HEARING LOSS OF 52‐57dB. NO TINNITUS.
THOMPSON & ORS v SMITH’s SHIP
REPAIRERS (NORTH SHIELDS) LTD
(1983); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0502199
£5,176.03 62 MILD NOISE INDUCED HEARING
LOSS OF 36dB. NO TINNITUS.
GALLAGHER v FORD MOTOR CO.
(1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505252
Page 74
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
£6,470.03 62
NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
24dB CAUSES C TO MISS PARTS OF
CONVERSATION AND TELEVISION
DIALOGUE.
TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. FELLOWS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994);
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM0505246
£8,234.86 62 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
27dB.
C SUFFERED FROM CONTINUOUS
LEFT SIDED TINNITUS AND
EXTREMELY INTERMITTENT RIGHT
SIDED MODERATE TINNITUS.
PRITCHARD v FORD MOTOR CO.
(1994); LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0505237
£8,414.31 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
£2,470.46 63 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
20‐42dB. NO TINNITUS.
BLACKLOCK v SWAN HUNTER
SHIPBUILDERS LTD (1983); LAWTEL
REPORT NO. AM0500001
£3,633.03 63 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 57‐
68dB. MILD TINNITUS.
GRAY v SMITH’s SHIP REPAIRERS
(NORTH SHIELDS) LTD, NOVEMBER
1983; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500877
£9,644.82 63 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
25dB MILD TINNITUS
WRIGHT v FORD MOTOR CO,
JANUARY 1989; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0502429
£9,726.94 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)*
Page 75
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
£10,998.63 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
£12,881.61 63 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
28.8dB. MILD TINNITUS.
ELLIOT v FORD MOTOR CO, JUNE
1990*
£6,470.03 64 NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS OF
22dB. TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED.
BROOKS v FORD MOTOR CO. (1994);
LAWTEL REPORT AM0505245
£8,553.09 65 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
31.77 dB. MILD TINNITUS. MUNRO v MOD, JUNE 1985*
£23,065.99 65 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 56‐
60dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
TRIPP v MOD, DECEMBER 1982;
LAWTEL REPORT NO. AM1748777
£52,958.92 65 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
76.6dB. SEVERE TINNITUS.
ABRAMOWICZ v CASBORUNDUM CO
LTD, JUNE 1981*
£14,360.50 66 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
13dB. MODERATE TINNITUS.
MORRIS v CALSONIC LLANELLI
RADIATORS LIMITED, JULY 1995
£16,847.13 66 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
78.3dB. NO TINNITUS. SMITH v BRITISH RAIL, JUNE 1980
£10,285.06 67 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
26.6dB MODERATE TINNITUS. NEIL v UEC INDUSTRIES, JUNE 2000*
£7,906.47 68 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
38dB. NO TINNITUS.
AMOS v CALOR GAS LTD, SEPTEMBER
1997; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
AM0500045
£14,535.49 68 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF
55.5dB. SEVERE TINNITUS.
WARNE v OCTAVIUS HUNT LTD,
JANUARY 2002; LAWTEL REPORT NO.
Page 76
Updated PSLA Award End October
2013
Claimant’s Age Extent of NIHL and what
frequencies Tinnitus? And if so the severity Name of Case and Reference
AM0502849
£2,470.46 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
£5,183.13 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
£12,153.13 74 AVERAGE BINAURAL LOSS OF 6.3
dB.
TINNITUS, SEVERITY NOT SPECIFIED. IF NO TINNITUS AWARD WOULD
HAVE BEEN £5,208.49
PATEL V AKZO NOBEL LIMITED (UNREPORTED, BLACKPOOL COUNTY
COURT, 08/08/2008)
* Not available on Lawtel.
Page 40
BC LEGALB R I N G I N G C L A R I T Y
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