is awarded they reversed the decision of the army which found the man had not heard from an exposure an appropriate exposure under the act for the hearing loss the hearing exposure noise exposure the act has been amended over the years and the most recent amendments in february one of two thousand and six the legislature placed a specific presumption of hearing loss in terms of certain appointments that presumption did not include cement workers steel workers jackhammer operators in this instance mr castle ari evidence was introduced in terms of the ambient noise at the plant and the hearing loss protection that was provided to mr cassatt laurie in terms of scientific evidence or reliable evidence as it relates to the exposure the commission has relied on mr cassel ari's testimony that he did not believe that the plugs for a fact of on the case that testimony was objected to was stricken by the arbitrator and no appeal or question concerning that evidence being allowable was ever presented by the petitioner in this case so the petitioner said in his percepts the protection was not did not afford him sufficient protection if i were to believe that this room was loud or i were to believe that this room with dark it would not make that a fact in terms of the evidence relied upon of a time harvard creation mr castle laurie did not prove through any competent evidence that he didn't out protection that would bring his exposure below the levels of the ninety decibels under the statue when it was the hearing protection program it started ten years previously mr castle ari already doctor's opinion either as it goes the opposite doesn't know i think there's no the opposite if you read carefully the commission relied on his testimony that he took the air plugs out six times a day to change them out and that he didn't think the things were effective dr oz was never presented those facts to rely on those facts to say that this hearing loss was related to the exposure that he testified to the things that he complained about in that film room were never mentioned and i was deposition the noise he complained about was testified to at the time of arbitration he merely said the man was exposed to an excess of one hundred decibels and for a period of thirty one years dr i was never provided any specific facts as what was relied upon by the commission instance a paid person who merely says in his perception has believed it was ineffective does not refute the evidence that was introduced time trial because of that the commission decided that it was up to the respondents burden to prove that there was in fact another hearing loss exposures after he testified his perception or belief there was i think the commission improperly shifted the burden to respond for us to prove that there was a hearing want hearing exposure was giving people cotton balls to use and they stipulated or of minute the time of trial at that hearing loss wasn't or wasn't sufficient to protect or reduce the decibel levels so the commission relying on a case within the responde testimony does not scientifically establish that he was exposed to some decibel level ninety degrees for a buffer period of time the fact that you can hear a sound doesn't mean that it is reached the level you can hear sounds a whisper starts at thirty when there was accepted by all parties the man had exposure above the level of ninety decibels because they stipulated that they use instead of actual hearing protection hearing protection was not afforded in wagner to bring the thing and bring the protection and bring them in below in the appropriate decibel level if a man is aware of a hearing loss exposure and he attributes their hearing loss exposure to me is more the worker's compensation act has many provisions and i would presume that when the legislature wrote the act think put them in appropriate order in terms of the importance if the man is years and his own doctor didn't make any comment those records were introduced and there was no finding or opinion from that doctor it was a noise induced hearing loss they knew objectively everyone knew that there was a hearing reduction beginning  early us in the late seventy's whether that was related to an age related hearing loss or a noise and do is tearing off is the issue if the fusion or was in fact of the belief that he had a hearing hearing was there should be some obligation for imitation was concerned wagner because again they stipulated the man had a continuing exposure case this was that is not stipulated there is no evidence that this man continued to have a harmful exposure to this test to noise other than his i never even used to hear hear your plugs when he was in the lunchroom and he didn't take them out he used them when he was in the control room so the activation disease act doesn't act employees from disease but they talk about the exposure to the hazard of the disease if you have a hearing protection and there is no it noise and below the ambient levels necessary for the exposure level you are not exposed to the hazards of the disease if you have chemicals inside a plant in a sealed container from the as a welder operator inside when president of the plant that he never left the confines of an office where there was no exposure to the plant had exposure to the office that there is no exposure indicated i've ruled out the disease process and i'm i believe you are continuing exposure to noise after hours was never asked about any physics and he knew nothing about the exposure for the three years before november  it's there's a difference between noise related the fact that continue to prove it was related to noise exposure as opposed to a disease process higher the limit the higher the noise lower level the lower the time of exposure required to develop the smarts and what happens this week we he was right next to physically next within yards away of rock crushing machinery and i've been exposed to this  during the first two to three years he was using rubber earplugs now there's no indication in the in any of the records that this provided any significant level of hearing protection in fact the testimony was it isn't something as little of just talking we're chewing  insulin use and the doc riley says when you look at those things there's nothing to show that these factors would have caused the natural hearing loss that they claim exist now what happens is we also need to keep in mind that under the circumstances the hearing loss has worked is not had to be the only cause of these to be just a cause or contributing cause now we know the severe nature of the exposure the cia for example we know that they would give him your watch to wear but the problem is he talked about the fact that up to half the day he couldn't lose you must even in the last few years of his work experience the simple reason is that it was incompatible with his welding abilities he could go ahead and wear the mask and ear muffs with the type of your mum that was supplied now w basis you only need to be exposed to a short time of there to suffer the loss and we also have the defendant's own doctor going ahead and indicating that he'll listen he started the last he had this was before hearing protection was provided and this was to continue consistent running what's also what happens is we know after even the hearing protection was at least provided in the plant this gentleman talked about the fact that it would not be used in times and what was available was faulty for the reason stated broader my i would be lying to the court if i had a full understanding that my belief is it was the occupational disease that put either in either way it still comes up with the same decision because mitigation of those decibel levels and it doesn't matter if there's one hundred forty degrees of ambient noise in a room if it's reduced by twenty degrees it's down to eighty four degrees which does not reach the requisite novel for this man to take the first step on his case and have  don't start with a noise exposure then he has an actor testify to it and then if it is he an art i would consider this a farce but you have to prove them by competent evidence you're not allowed any presumption merely because it's a rock rushing plant