A Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal decision has overturned an earlier ruling that dismissed a former employee’s claim for occupational noise-induced hearing loss. The Tribunal found that the worker, referred to as X, filed his claim within the statutory time frame upon discovering his hearing loss was work-related in 2023. This decision mandates that the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) of Nova Scotia proceed with evaluating the claim based on its merits.
Background and appeal details
X, a former maintenance mechanic who worked for a wine production company for over 35 years, filed a claim with the WCB on March 29, 2023, citing occupational noise-induced hearing loss. He noted a history of hearing tests conducted during his employment, including evaluations at a Nova Scotia Hearing and Speech Clinic in 1993 and 2015, which revealed progressive hearing loss over time. X retired in 2017.
The WCB initially denied the claim, stating it was filed beyond the allowable period. The Board’s decision, issued on September 8, 2023, concluded that X should have recognized his hearing loss as work-related by 2015 and, therefore, missed the five-year window to submit a claim. X appealed, and a Hearing Officer upheld the Board’s decision on November 1, 2023.
On October 2, 2024, the Tribunal held an oral hearing, where X testified that he did not become aware of the work-related cause of his hearing loss until a 2023 audiogram. The employer withdrew from participation prior to the hearing, and the WCB did not attend.
Legal Framework and Key Considerations
The Tribunal, led by Appeal Commissioner David Pearson, considered relevant sections of the Workers’ Compensation Act, particularly Section 83, which governs the filing requirements for occupational disease claims. Specifically, Section 83(2) requires claims to be made within 12 months after a worker learns of an occupational disease, while Section 83(6) restricts filing if five years have elapsed since that realization.
A pivotal aspect of the case involved determining when X knew his hearing loss was work-related. The Tribunal noted that X needed both awareness of the work-related cause and a diagnosis meeting the criteria for an occupational disease. According to the Tribunal, X was not informed of the work-related nature of his hearing loss until 2023, thus meeting the filing requirements.
Tribunal’s Findings and Worker’s Testimony
X testified that throughout his employment, he regularly underwent hearing screenings conducted by non-specialists, often in makeshift settings like a van or unused boardroom. He claimed he was never provided with test results or informed of a connection between his hearing loss and workplace noise exposure.
During a 2015 audiogram, X noted a slight loss of hearing, which led the Board to assert that he should have recognized the issue as work-related then. However, X testified that he asked the audiologist if his hearing loss was work-related but was told, “she couldn’t say.” X further stated that had he been told of the connection, he would have promptly filed a claim.
It wasn’t until his 2023 hearing test that X received explicit confirmation from an audiologist that his hearing loss was likely work-related and that he had grounds for a compensation claim. Shortly after this test, he filed his claim with the WCB.
Analysis of Evidence and Conclusion
Commissioner Pearson evaluated the evidence and found that the 2015 audiogram did not include a specific attribution of X’s hearing loss to occupational noise exposure, despite noting a 35-year history of workplace noise. “I find insufficient evidence to state that he more than likely knew that his hearing loss had been caused by occupational noise exposure,” Pearson stated.
The Tribunal accepted X’s account of events, ruling that his knowledge of the work-related cause was only established with the 2023 audiogram. The decision concluded that X’s claim was submitted within the allowable period under the Act and thus is not barred.
Implications for Employers and HR Professionals
This case highlights the importance of clarity in workplace health assessments and employer obligations regarding occupational diseases. HR professionals should ensure that employees receive complete and comprehensible information from workplace health screenings, particularly in noisy environments that could lead to hearing loss.
The Tribunal’s ruling underscores the necessity for clear communication with workers regarding occupational health risks and the potential timelines for compensation claims. As this case illustrates, when employees are not fully informed of a condition’s work-relatedness, the statute of limitations may not apply until such a connection is explicitly recognized.
The WCB will now adjudicate X’s claim based on its merits.
For more information, see 2023-472-AD (Re), 2024 CanLII 96022 (NS WCAT).
