He Said Work Caused Hearing Loss – But Also Admitted This

An employee who said work caused his hearing loss applied for workers’ compensation benefits. But unfortunately for him, he also provided testimony that cast doubt on the assertion that his hearing loss was caused by exposure to noise at work.

In the end, a court determined that he was not entitled to collect workers’ compensation benefits because he did not establish the requisite link between his hearing loss and his job.

Employee Suffered Hearing Loss

Andrew DeWolf worked as an emergency medical technician for about 15 years.

In the summer of 2020, DeWolf filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. He said he sustained hearing loss as a result of repeated exposure to loud radio and siren noise while on the job.

Although he said he worked on a full-time basis and sometimes worked more than 60 hours per week, he did not specifically say how often he was exposed to loud noise at work.

In addition, he was not able to say what decibel level of noise he was exposed to, and he admitted that he could carry on a conversation inside his work vehicle while the vehicle’s siren was operating.

Firearms May Have Caused Hearing Loss

But the real kicker was this: DeWolf admitted that he has used firearms to hunt recreationally for more than 25 years – and has not consistently worn ear protection when doing so.

DeWolf tried to support his claim for benefits by presenting the testimony of two otolaryngologists, also known as ENTs. But the testimony of those two witnesses did not paint a convincing picture that DeWolf’s hearing loss was caused by his exposure to workplace noise.

The first ENT diagnosed DeWolf as having moderately severe to severe bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. As to causation, he said there was “a very good chance” that the hearing loss was related to noise exposure in the workplace setting. But he also admitted that he was not provided with any information about the decibel levels that DeWolf was exposed to while he was at work. Perhaps even worse, he said he was not made aware of DeWolf’s use of firearms.

The second ENT said DeWolf’s hearing loss was probably related to some type of noise exposure. But he also said he did not have an opinion as to whether the hearing loss was caused by exposure to noise at work. The second ENT added that he was not given information about DeWolf’s level and duration of exposure to noise at work.

Initial Decision Granted Benefits

Despite this shaky foundation, a workers’ compensation law judge initially decided that DeWolf was in fact entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits for his hearing loss. It was a short-lived victory, as a workers’ compensation appeals board reversed the workers’ compensation law judge’s decision.

The board determined that DeWolf did not meet his burden to produce competent medical evidence that established a relationship between his injury and his employment. More simply put, he did not come up with medical evidence showing that workplace noise caused his hearing loss.

After the board reversed the workers’ compensation law judge’s decision to award benefits, DeWolf appealed.

A state trial court affirmed the board’s decision to deny benefits.

Must Establish Link to Get Benefits

The court explained that to be entitled to benefits, DeWolf had to “establish a recognizable link between [his] condition and a distinctive feature of [his] occupation through the submission of competent medical evidence.”

Translation: Prove with medical evidence that noise at work caused your hearing loss.

As far as level of proof, the court said, “a medical opinion on the issue of causation must signify a probability as to the underlying cause of the claimant’s injury which is supported by a rational basis.”

DeWolf did not meet that standard, the court said.

Instead, the board permissibly found that DeWolf’s medical evidence of a causal relationship was speculative.

The board’s decision to reject DeWolf’s claim for benefits was affirmed.

Matter of DeWolf v. Wayne County, No. CV-23-2014, 2024 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3579 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 6/27/24).