General Damages for Hearing Loss and Tinnitus

General damages for hearing loss and tinnitus compensate a permanent change to one of the senses, and courts assess the two together because they usually arrive together. An audiogram measures how much hearing is gone. It measures nothing about the ringing, and the ringing is often what makes the claimant’s life difficult. This chapter states how courts value both.

What the Audiogram Proves and What It Does Not

An audiogram gives objective evidence of threshold shift, and where a pre injury baseline exists the comparison is close to unanswerable. Courts rely on it for the extent of loss and for whether the loss is sensorineural or conductive. What it cannot show is tinnitus, which has no objective test at all. Tinnitus is proved the way pain is proved, through a consistent history, treatment records and evidence from people who live with the claimant. Defence counsel challenge it for exactly that reason.

Tinnitus Is Valued Through Its Effect on Sleep and Concentration

Constant ringing interferes with sleep, and disturbed sleep produces irritability and difficulty concentrating. Courts have compensated that chain of consequences where the medical evidence supports it. Severe tinnitus that disrupts sleep nightly is assessed well above intermittent ringing the claimant notices only in a quiet room. Psychological treatment records matter here, and the overlap with the depression and anxiety chapter is common enough that both heads are often pleaded on the same file.

General Damages for Hearing Loss Depend on What the Ear Did Before

Unilateral loss is different from bilateral loss, because a person with one working ear keeps speech comprehension but loses the ability to locate sound. A musician, a tradesperson working around machinery, a teacher and anyone whose work depends on the telephone lose more than the audiogram suggests. Age cuts both ways, since older claimants often face an argument that some of the loss is age related, which is answered with baseline testing where it exists.

Where the Claim Is Brought Matters

Hearing loss caused by workplace noise exposure may fall inside the workers compensation system rather than the courts, and the boards in each Atlantic province administer their own permanent impairment ratings. Whether a claim can be brought in court at all should be checked before anything else, because the statutory bar is jurisdictional. Court decisions on hearing loss awards are published on CanLII. Sudden acoustic trauma from a collision or an assault is handled in the ordinary way, and the vestibular injuries chapter covers the balance problems that frequently accompany inner ear damage. The guide’s opening chapter maps the rest of the series, and what we can do for you sets out how the firm works a file. Every claim type the firm takes is listed on the injury law areas hub.