Hearing loss claims

Macca83_2

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Wasn't having a go, just thought it would be pretty obvious that they could tell the difference tbh.

I wouldn't. Tinnitus I understand from working in loud environments. But hearing loss I assumed would be the same regardless of whether it was lost due to old age or working for long periods of time in noisy places

swingaloo

It was, as I stated a general question as to how can they tell!

I have no issue whatever with people claiming for anything they rightly deserve. My point about the compensation culture was just to state that the television advertising is aimed at getting every Tom, !!!!!! and Harry to try to cash in. I was asking the question as I could envisage many people thinking they could pull a fast one and claim which I believe is wrong.

The first poster to reply clearly explained that there is a straightforward way to tell if it is an industrial problem or age problem and for that I thank them.

However to accuse me of not getting my facts straight is a bit confusing as I was simply asking a question.

Since when was asking a genuine question posting drivel?

Hear-Hear

The reply from SkintGypsy above was spot on. When the 2-Yearly (routine) hearing test, or Annual (Under-55's with hearing difficulties and all Over-55's regardless of hearing difficulty) hearing test, a chart is plotted called an audiogram. On a very very general basis:
1. if the line is near the top of the chart and fairly straight, then hearing is likely to be normal
2. if the line falls gently, like a ski-slope, then age-related hearing loss is indicated
3. if the line is straight, then bends downwards precipitously (sharply), almost like dropping off a cliff, then noise-induced hearing loss can be suspected
4. if the line shows other patterns, then a variety of other diagnoses can be considered

The problem is, of course, that no individual presents with a view that falls into just one of the above. For most people there will be a combination of factors. For example - Age (55+) AND Noise at Work (possibly over several years). Unlike, say, a bodily injury at work, noise induced hearing loss develops over a long period.

Given that everyone develops hearing loss at some stage in their life, and given how No Win, No Fee firms operate, you would really have to be able to show an audiogram described in (3) above, before they would consider taking a claim further. At a basic level, the sharper the downward slope, the more likely a No Win, No Fee firm will take the case on. If the slope is gentle and gradual, they are unlikely to take it on.

If an individual wants to arrange an initial opinion before going down the legal route, it's easy enough now to get hearing tested free of charge on most High Streets, or at the local Hospital. The audiologist will normally explain the meaning of the audiogram, and point out the significance of 'ski-slope' or 'precipitous' if appropriate.

honeypop

Hear-Hear wrote: »

If an individual wants to arrange an initial opinion before going down the legal route, it's easy enough now to get hearing tested free of charge on most High Streets, or at the local Hospital. The audiologist will normally explain the meaning of the audiogram, and point out the significance of 'ski-slope' or 'precipitous' if appropriate.

This is interesting, but I have a question: If someone had a hearing test as they feel they are suffering from some sort of hearing loss, if it has been declining over time already then the test gives a starting point to be recorded, over how long would it take to show results on an audiogram that would show 'ski-slope' or 'precipitous'?

Hear-Hear

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow the question. It's not a matter of comparing audiograms of an individual over time, but comparing an audiogram of an individual on the day of the test, to the benchmark of 'normal' hearing.

The test itself will show whether there is a hearing loss, and if so, what type of hearing loss. For most people, the outcome will be 'fairly straight', 'ski slope' or 'precipitous'. By the time the audiogram has been taken, the hearing loss has already manifested.

There's an argument to suggest that leaving hearing loss untreated leads to more rapid deterioration, but that's a whole separate issue.

honeypop

Hear-Hear wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow the question. It's not a matter of comparing audiograms of an individual over time, but comparing an audiogram of an individual on the day of the test, to the benchmark of 'normal' hearing.

The test itself will show whether there is a hearing loss, and if so, what type of hearing loss.

Thank you for your answer, I thought perhaps someone would have to be tested over time to see in which way the hearing decreased, but see from your response that one test would be enough to compare it to a benchmark. I have been wondering about this on and off for years, so nice to get an answer!

Akrotiri103

Not sure if this the right place. I am just about to try and claim for hearing loss after spending all my working life in engineering. There are so many firms out there all vying for my business. How do I pick which will be best for me? Can anyone recommend a reputable company.
Thank you

pollypenny

I have a hearing loss, partly linked to tinnitus, but it's not much help by hearing aids since the biggest problem is lack of clarity.

Loud incidental music in films drives me mad. Gone Girl was horrendous! At least I can have subtitles on at home.

indsty

Many firms (good ones) are now organising regular audiometry checks for their employees. This will show a possible declining hearing level over the years. It also means that employees are "told" to wear ear defenders etc at work to prevent hearing loss. I used to do audiometry checks for steel workers etc, and the older guys had terrible results, and even the younger ones had noticeable loss. Wear your ear defenders please guys !