Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

Thoughts on my audiogram?

This topic is closed.

11 replies494 viewsLast reply

Link to this topic

Lurker here. 40+ years as a mechanic. Currently have KS10’s with custom hard molds that are vented, and a set of KS6 with soft domes for “special” occasions at work. Anyway, worker compensation says my loss is genetic. I have 5 other siblings, parents, numerous cousins, aunts, uncles, etc, and none have/had hearing loss. I guess I’m the lucky one. I am going to apply again and see if they will do anything. Does anyone have any suggestions? I know the sqeeky wheel gets the grease, so I will try that approach.

It seems to me that being the outlier within my family, I may also be the outlier for noise induced hearing loss? That might be another approach. I just find it very hard to believe that, according to WCB, I have no noise induced hearing loss.

Regardless, my provider has recommended the Oticon Intent 3. I have been looking, and the Phonak Infinio Sphere also looks very good. Thoughts on this would be appreciated!

Any thoughts or suggestions are much appreciated.

Thanks!

6 people in this conversation4 min readJump to latest

Having been an audiologist testing for industrial legal claims in the past, your claim would fail the main criteria that we used to test under. You might get some Noise Induced Hearing Loss criteria where they just consider the average overall loss; but the ones that I tested needed to to exhibit certain profiles associated with noise damage in otherwise normal(ish) hearing.

I can go into the particulars of the curvature if you want, but suffice to say yours isn’t that shape. I’m not sure if you’re reporting Tinnitus or even if there’s a conductive element involved, but these would also be factors to consider.

Neville might have a better handle on this, but assuming it’s a SensoriNeural loss: I’d say that there are primarily congenital factors involved. Without results I can’t tell you a lot more.

Very bad tinnitus in both ears. If I recall correctly, bone conduction tests came out the same. I did get checked to see if I was suitable for , and was told there was no point.

I understand the curve doesn’t fit normal criteria, but I just have a hard time believing that I don’t have any hearing loss due to noise.

In reply to @Um_bongo

Interesting. I don’t have better information; I think that would get funded where I am if it’s generally sloping sensorineural. Not where your are because why? The lows are too bad? But what if the noise exposure was from, say, a mill or a metal press or some other really awfully damaging thing?

It’s going to depend on the region I guess. Maybe they have an exit test.

They say that the loss is genetic, not noise induced, therefore not covered.Basically, they said it doesn’t match a classic noise loss curve, so nope.

In reply to @Neville

The claim would probably just go forward on the tinnitus (he’s just mentioned) and overall SN loss.

The usual criteria here requires a ‘shoulder’ circa 1.5KHz and a decent concave portion around 4KHz to identify (and separate from age related SN) as a non-organic loss.

I haven’t seen that many ‘fully burned out’ LF SN without more 4KHz damage, but no doubt it’s possible. The defence here would be all over the ‘was going to happen anyway/congenital’ argument’ which could lead to a split liability settlement.

In reply to @girvinta

@girvinta said:

Basically, they said it doesn’t match a classic noise loss curve, so nope

Yeah; this is how it would land here.

I’d keep banging the drum about how debilitating the Tinnitus is though, and ask them what has caused it to become so severe. You might need to lean on the on your side to make it happen.

In reply to @Um_bongo

Oh interesting. I was under the impression that the 4k noise notch was a myth. I could have sworn I saw a big review from the a while back that basically concluded that that’s how noise induced damage looks for some, but only about 30%.

In reply to @Neville

I might be out of date in the light of that meta study you mentioned, but the ’s that ran the show used to be adamant that they would only act if the classic ‘shape’ was observed or there was debilitating tinnitus. So we used to screen according to their wishes.

In hindsight it was a bit weird because I’ve seen that shape from cases with apparently no noise exposure too.

Perhaps it was more about disproving other conditions being the potential underlying cause: and if you’re going to take on another ENT, it’s difficult to argue against if it’s a textbook example.

Related discussions