885095989

\

8:55

4NS3. Hearing loss compensation—The defense prospective. Richard W. Scheiner (Se mm es, Bowen & Semmes, 250 W. Pratt St., Baltimore, MD 21201)

The lecture will focus on the current State of hearing loss claims in the workplace. The discussion will include the prevalence of hearing loss claims in heavy industry, the factors influencing the volume of claims including the influence of unions and organized labor, the fecling that these claims yield easy money, and the etfect of the depressed economy. Information will be given regarding the cost factor of these claims to the employer and industry. The lecture will include an overview of the Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) and certain portions of that law which play a strong part in the resolution of hearing loss claims including the last injurious exposurc rule, the no apportionment rule, the effect of advancing age and/or retired workers on hearing loss claims, and the virtual elimination of the dcfenses of the statute of limitations and notice. Parallel comparison will be madę to State workers* compensation acts focusing primarily on the State of Maryland. A review of the many factors which favor the claimant’s position in hearing loss cases will be discussed. In addition, the lecture will review various legał tactics and theories used in defending hearing loss claims including somc recent decisions under the Longshore & Harbor Workers Compensation Act which affect and may ultimately change defense tactics.

9:20

4NS4. Hearing loss compensation from the corporate yiewpoint. M. Russell Guy (Law Dept., Bethlehcm Steel Corp., Rm. 1968, Martin Tower, Bethlehem, PA 18016-7699)

Manufacturing operations are located mainly in three States which present widely varying requirements for hearing loss compeasation; the compensation case experiences in these three jurisdictions will be discussed. The relationship of hearing loss compensation costs to total compensation costs will be presented. An explanation will be given on the approach utilized to addrcss/handle hearing loss claims. The impor-tance of preventing occupational hearing loss will be emphasized.

9:45

4NS5. Preventing compensable on-the-job noise-lnduced hearing loss. Larry H. Royster (Dept. of Mech. and Aerosp. Eng., NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695-7910) and Julia Doswell Royster (Environmental Noise Consultants, Inc., P.O. Box 30698, Raleigh, NC 27622-0698)

To prevent a significant on-the-job noise-induced hearing loss, management must ensure that hearing conservation program (HCP) activities include the following efforts (as appropriate): pre- and post-employment audiograms, annual audiograms for employees with TWAs of 85-99 dBA and semiannual audiograms for employees with TWAs of 100 dBA and higher, use of a threshold shift criterion morę strict than the OSHA STS to flag the most noise-susceptible employees, documcntation of adcquate hearing protector fitting, issuing, replacement, and uscr training, and annual updating of auditory history informa-tion. 'Die HCP’s level of effectiveness should be evaluated annually using the recommendations of ANSI S12/WG12; if the program is found ineffective, corrective measures should be implemented immcdiately. When employees file for compensation, the appropriateness of their claims is evaluatcd by taking into consideration the level of effectiveness and completeness of the HCP, comparing their TWA exposure lcvel against the real-world protection capabilities of the hearing protcction utilized, and comparing their hearing losses against the rangę of hearing loss predicted using the ISO 1999 (1990) model for a noise-susceptible population with the same exposure. If an employee’s hearing loss is judged to be non-work-related, then all company personnel and other professionals who will be involved in the judicial process should be adequateły trained in preparation for the hearing or trial.

10:10

4NS6. Hearing loss prevention—Worker’s responsibilities. James E. Detwiler (CIH Environmental, Inc., 12 Victory Circle, Reading, PA 19605)

One element of hearing loss prevention that management often feels it cannot cflcctivcly control is worker*s actions and responsibilities. The solution to this problem is the development and enforcement of effective management-backed employee policies covering each hearing conservation issue. It is absolutely vitaJ that all such policies be in writing and that they be elear, reasonable. sensible, and enforccable. Principal program elements that necd written policies are monitoring, engineering and administrative Controls, personal hearing protection derices, training and education, audiometric testing, and supervisors* responsibilities in program administration. Under each program element, one or morę specific policy ob-jectives should be spelled out, with each objcctive followed by a detailed policy statement of the actions or behavior required to meet that objective. Numerous examples of policy objectives and statements were written for each of the principal program elements. Finally. for the policies to be enforceable, there must be in place a fair and consistent system of discipline. Properly written and enforced policies are not designed to restrict the individual, but to protect him by assuring him safe working conditions and equal treatment with his fellows.

1904

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Voł. 89, No. 4, Pt 2, April 1991

121st Meeting: Acoustical Society of America

1904