 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Grove v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board2/12/2002
SUBMITTED: February 23, 2001
OPINION NOT REPORTED
William Grove (claimant) petitions for review from an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board), which affirmed the order of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) denying claimant benefits for hearing loss. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Board's order.
Claimant is a welder for York International Corp. (employer), where from 1971 to the present he was exposed to loud noise. In the course of his work claimant uses an arc welder, bale arc, cutting torch, disc grinder, vibrator, hammer, and steel stamps. In addition to the noise created by his own work, particularly with the vibrator and disc grinder, claimant works near fourteen other welders using the same loud tools. When claimant first began his work with employer, he wore ear protection that he described as ineffective "Swedish wool." R.R. at 34a. Later, in approximately 1980, claimant began wearing more traditional hearing
protection, which he also described as ineffective. Clamaint's hearing gradually worsened, and he began to have difficulty communicating with co-workers. In 1996, claimant filed a claim petition alleging work related hearing loss.
To support his claim petition claimant saw Stephen E. Ladenheim, M.D. Dr. Ladenheim took claimant's history, including complaints that claimant had difficulty hearing his wife and family, the television, radio, and movies, and hearing in restaurants, stores, and church. After conducting a physical and audiometric examination of claimant, Dr. Ladenheim opined that claimant suffered from a binaural hearing impairment of 10.32% under the American Medical Association's guidelines. Further, Dr. Ladenheim concluded claimant's hearing loss was caused by work-related noise exposure.
Employer opposed claimant's medical evidence with the report of Peter L. Zemo, M.D., F.A.C.S. Dr. Zemo saw claimant twice in 1998, first performing a physical examination and then an audiometric examination eleven days later. Dr. Zemo additionally had the benefit of reading Dr. Ladenheim's report and claimant's hearing testimony, as well as claimant's hearing conservation records from 1971 through 1997, and the records from a previous examination he performed on claimant in 1990. Based on his 1998 audiometric testing, Dr. Zemo determined claimant had a hearing impairment of 19.4%. After noting claimant had a hearing loss of 50 decibels in the 3000 hertz range which predated his current employment, Dr. Zemo further analyzed claimant's hearing loss. Dr. Zemo indicated that if this portion of claimant's hearing loss is deducted, claimant's impairment drops to 0.6%, well below the 10% threshold required to substantiate a hearing loss claim. Having thus concluded that the vast majority of claimant's hearing loss predated claimant's employment, Dr. Zemo concluded that claimant's work environment was not a significant contributing factor to his current hearing loss.
Based on the foregoing, the WCJ found Dr. Zemo to be credible and Dr. Ladenheim incredible, and found in favor of employer. The WCJ specifically relied on Dr. Zemo's opinion that "when the pre-employment hearing loss is not considered in the impairment calculations, Clamaint's binaural impairment drops below the 10% required under the Act." R.R. at 11a. On appeal to the Board, claimant argued that the WCJ erred by accepting Dr. Zemo's mathematical accounting for claimant's pre-existing hearing loss. The Board affirmed, stating that " he Act does not specifically indicate that in order to establish . . . previous impairment, a binaural calculation must be relied upon." R.R. at 18a.
On appeal to this court, cl
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|