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
IF PETIONER HAD PURCHASED CONCRETE AS A PART OF A SERVICE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE PURCHASE WOULD HAVE BEEN EXEMPT FROM SALES TAX; BUT PETITIONER PURCHASED THE CONTRACT IN “RAW” FORM AND PETITIONER’S EMPLOYEES AND SUBCONTRACTORS USED IT TO BUILD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; THE PURCHASE OF THE CONCRETE WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO SALES TAX (THIRD DEPT).
Music Teachers Were Employees Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits—Criteria for Professionals, Like Musicians, Who Do Not Lend Themselves to Direct Supervision or Control, Explained
Parcels of Land Entitled to Tax Exempt Status Despite Alleged Violations of Building and Fire Code
COUNSEL FOR A CIVILLY COMMITTED SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTEND MEETINGS ABOUT APPROPRIATE TREATMENT FOR THE SEX OFFENDER 3RD DEPT.
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE GROUND FOR SUPPRESSION OF A SHOTGUN AND SHOTGUN SHELL RELIED ON BY COUNTY COURT; ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE RAISED OTHER GROUNDS FOR JUSTIFICATION OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, THOSE GROUNDS CANNOT BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL BECAUSE COUNTY COURT DID NOT RULE ON THEM; MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE PEOPLE’S OTHER ARGUMENTS (THIRD DEPT).
IF GERMANY WAS DECEDENT’S DOMICILE, NEW YORK MAY RECOGNIZE THE GERMAN HOLOGRAPHIC WILL; MATTER SENT BACK TO SURROGATE’S COURT TO DEVELOP A RECORD ON THE DOMICILE ISSUE (THIRD DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FOOT TO SINK INTO SOFT ASPHALT WAS TRIVIAL OR OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).
WARREN COUNTY DID NOT HAVE “PARTICULAR EFFECT” JURISDICTION OVER CRIMINAL OFFENSES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN SARATOGA COUNTY (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”...