A comprehensive and easily accessible directory of Employee Leasing Services nationwide
help small business Attract and Retain quality employees by offering quality benefits through Employee Leasing Services
Foster an environment of fellowship and free exchange of ideas among member Employee Leasing Companies

  to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.

Elliott Turbomachinery Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

10/28/2005



Elliott Turbomachinery Company and ITT Specialty Services (Employer) appeal an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming a decision of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) granting workers' compensation benefits to David Matthews (Claimant) for binaural hearing loss he suffered while in its employ.


On August 3, 1998, Claimant filed a claim petition against Employer alleging that he had sustained a binaural hearing loss of greater than 10% on July 18, 1998, as a result of continuous exposure to hazardous occupational noise incurred in the course and scope of his employment with Employer. Employer filed an answer denying the allegations. Hearings were held before the WCJ at which Claimant testified regarding his lengthy employment with Employer and the noise levels at his job. Claimant stated that he had worked for Employer since January 25, 1966, initially as a hook up man for five to seven years and then in the light and heavy fabrication departments since that time. He explained the fabrication department built compressor and compressor components, and when working in the heavy fabrication department, where he worked since 1989 or 1990, he performed welding, fitting, grinding and air arcing, all noisy jobs, but with air arcing producing the worst noise. The process used compressor barrels and took raw materials and formed the compressor through the welding process. Air arcing was the part of the process where metal was scooped out to form a grove which, after cleaning, was used to weld the pieces together. He stated that air arcing was done on a daily basis with two to four workers air arcing at the same time, at least once a week for up to eight hours. Claimant believed that the noise in this area varied daily but had not changed significantly overall since 1990. Claimant explained that the fabrication department worked on compressors ranging to eight feet in diameter or 25 feet in circumference, and sometimes air arcing was performed inside an enclosed area. He stated that he wore hearing protection since 1991 and initially wore it when air arcing or noise levels were high. Claimant also offered the testimony of James Smolick, employed by Employer for 34 years, who testified that the noise from air arcing was similar to that of a jet engine starting up, and it could last as long as two hours but would start and stop during that time.


In support of his claim petition, Claimant offered the expert medical testimony of Roger L. Duerksen, M.D. (Dr. Duerksen), a board-certified otolaryngologist, who examined him on July 13, 1998, and whose office performed a screening audiogram of Claimant on June 8, 1998. Regarding the screen audiogram, Dr. Duerksen stated that the test demonstrated a hearing loss of 18.75% in the right ear, 24.375% in the left ear and 19.7% binaurally. Another audiogram was performed on July 13, 1998, which Dr. Duerksen interpreted as showing a symmetrical moderate to sever bilateral sensorineural hearing loss which he calculated as 20.63% in the right ear, 24.375% in the left ear and 21.3% binaurally. He stated this was indicative of an occupational noise induced hearing loss which was bilateral and symmetrical. He opined that Claimant's permanent binaural hearing loss of 21.3% was due to his exposure to industrial noise incurred in the course of his employment with Employer. Dr. Duerksen admitted that he had not reviewed any data from noise studies that had been performed and had only relied on Claimant's subjective description of the noise levels at his job. Dr. Duerksen stated that hearing loss caused by occupational noise could continue to progress even after 15 years of exposure depending upon the amount of time the employee was exposed to the

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services    Employee Leasing Services


  to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.

Employee Leasing Who Is the Employer? Hiring/Firing Issues
Employee Leasing Advantage Employee Leasing Models Human Resources Management
Employee Handbooks American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Employers Practice Liability Insurance (EPL)
Employment Forms, Postings Sexual Harassment at workplace Employee Leasing vs. Temp
Administrative Services Organization (ASO) Human Resources Organization (HRO) Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Payroll Services Human Resources Workers Compensation Codes
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Inquiries  |  Partner Websites
SiteMap  | Trading Partners  | Register  | Case LawsFAQ | Employee Leasing Forum | Employee Leasing Directory  | Success Stories
Terms of Service  Copyright © 2004. “Employee-Leasing.org ”. All rights reserved.