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
Bond Resolution for Upgrades to School District Buildings Does Not Constitute a School-District Debt—Petitioner Did Not Have Standing to Challenge School District’s Environmental Impact Determination
Odor of Burnt Marijuana Provided Probable Cause to Search Defendant and Vehicle
PETITIONER, A COURT OFFICER, SLIPPED AND FELL ON A WET FLOOR IN THE COURTHOUSE; THE FALL WAS AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT).
THE HISTORY OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN INFANT PLAINTIFF AND ANOTHER STUDENT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE ATTACK ON INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS FORESEEABLE FROM THE SCHOOL’S PERSPECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).
BEFORE SENTENCING DEFENDANT AS A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER, THE COURT DID NOT MAKE A FINDING WHETHER THE TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK FOR ANY PREDICATE VIOLENT FELONY WAS TOLLED BY A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION; THE ISSUE SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND WAS PROPERLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (THIRD DEPT). ​
Inmate Should Not Have Been Required to Document His Native American Ancestry In Order to Practice His Religion
Quitting in Anticipation of Discharge Is Not “Good Cause” for Leaving Employment
DVDs SUBMITTED BY THE VICTIM’S FAMILY MEMBERS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE IN CONNECTION WITH WHETHER PETITIONER SHOULD BE GRANTED PAROLE, BECAUSE THE DVDs DID NOT PRESENT NEW EVIDENCE, THE PAROLE BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE RESCINDED ITS DECISION TO SET A RELEASE DATE (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”...