You are here: / / CLAIMANT DID NOT REMOVE HIMSELF FROM EXPOSURE TO HARMFUL NOISE FOR THREE...

CLAIMANT DID NOT REMOVE HIMSELF FROM EXPOSURE TO HARMFUL NOISE FOR THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO APPLYING FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION FOR HEARING LOSS, CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED.

The Third Department determined claimant was properly denied benefits for hearing loss. To qualify, claimant was required to show he used effective ear protection for three months. Claimant used the same type of ear protection he was using when he experienced the hearing loss:

Claimant contends that he has been removed from the workplace noise for the requisite time period. Claimant testified that he was exposed to workplace noise beginning in 1977 and that he has always worn the earplugs or headphones provided by the employer for protection from the noise. The statute requires, however, as relevant here, that claimant be removed from exposure to the harmful noise by “use of effective ear protection devices” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb). In light of claimant’s continued use of, for the three months in question, the same method of hearing protection against the workplace noise that he used while contracting occupational hearing loss, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant has not established, for the purpose of an accurate appraisal of his hearing loss, that he has been removed from the noise for the requisite time period … . We note that the statute requires claimant to use effective protection, but that it would be at the employer’s expense (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb). It does not appear, however, that claimant has availed himself of such protection, other than continuing to use the same devices he was wearing at the time that he contracted the hearing loss. Matter of Durkot v Newsday, 2017 NY Slip Op 04341, 3rd Dept 6-1-17

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (CLAIMANT DID NOT REMOVE HIMSELF FROM EXPOSURE TO HARMFUL NOISE FOR THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO APPLYING FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION FOR HEARING LOSS, CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED)/HEARING LOSS (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, CLAIMANT DID NOT REMOVE HIMSELF FROM EXPOSURE TO HARMFUL NOISE FOR THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO APPLYING FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION FOR HEARING LOSS, CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED)

You might also like
CLAIMANT, A TEACHER IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL, WAS NOT GIVEN ENOUGH TIME TO CONSULT WITH HER DOCTOR ABOUT WHETHER TO OBEY THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE; THE DENIAL OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS REVERSED AND THE MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
HERE THE JUDGE’S DECISION TO EMPANEL AN ANONYMOUS JURY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT REASONS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
Fraud Does Not Require Proof of a “Nefarious Motive”—Fact that Respondent Knew that the Spouses of Three Signatories Signed the Petition on the Signatories’ Behalf Invalidated the Petition, Despite the Fact that There Were a Sufficient Number of Valid Signatures
PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE INSTRUCTED THE GRAND JURY ON THE AGENCY DEFENSE IN THIS CRIMINAL SALE OF MARIJUANA CASE, INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED.
DESPITE RULING THAT NO EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS TO TALK TO COUNSEL COULD BE PRESENTED, TWO TESTIFYING WITNESSES VIOLATED THAT RULING, BECAUSE THAT EVIDENCE CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENSE STRATEGY A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
Application for a Full Board Review Must Be Considered by a Panel of At Least Three Members of the Workers’ Compensation Board
FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT). ​
IN THIS HOSTILE-WORK-ENVIRONMENT ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983 AND THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS, ALL CITY EMPLOYEES, WERE DEEMED PROTECTED FROM SUIT BY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AS A MATTER OF LAW; WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGEDLY MADE SEXUALLY INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WAS APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EXOTIC DANCER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS. DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS “LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY”...