Case study on compensation for occupational deafness

Case Study 1

The claimant Mr R lived in Lincolnshire and worked as a general construction worker and plant operator.

Mr R was exposed to high noise levels when operating plant such as mechanical diggers, and also when using powered hand tools such as stone saws and large drills.  Mr R’s employer failed to supply enough pairs of ear protectors for all of the workers that needed to use ear protectors, and also to provide health and safety information on using ear protectors.

Mr R’s employer attempted to defend the claim, but the county court judge rejected the employers arguments as they had failed on a number of key noise at work legal elements and accepted Mr R’s claim that his employer had been in breach of the Noise at Work Regulations 1989.

The claimant was paid £16000 compensation for the occupational hearing loss and tinnitus that he suffered.

Read how you can measure or identify if you are at risk of suffering hearing problems at work

Case Study 2

Mrs S had been employed as an assembly worker in a factory near Nottingham that had since closed, and her routine work had been assembling and fabricating metal cases.

Mrs S had not been trained or instructed in how to properly use the ear protectors supplied by her employer that were a type of ear plug.  Also Mrs S’s employer had failed to carry out any type of checks to ensure that Mrs S’s hearing was not being damaged by the noise in the factory.

Mrs S was paid £7500 compensation for the hearing loss and tinnitus that she had suffered by the insurers of the factory owner.

More – Do not underestimate the hazard of noise in the workplace.

Discrimination against deaf person who needed an assistance dog and was refused service in a restaurant received £1200 for injury and hurt feelings. The client in this case was refused food or service in a restaurant because he was accompanied by a dog specially trained to work with deaf people. The Disability Rights Commission took the case forward and won compensation for the injured party – 10th January 2009

RETURN TO THE TOP OF PAGE ^.