READ FULL DECISION - WARREN JONES vs. CARGILL
IV. CONCLUSION
The evidence presented fails to weigh in support Claimant’s arguments. Drs. Irwin, Seidemann, and Engelberg agree that a flat pattern of hearing loss, as is shown in this case, is not indicative of noise-induced hearing loss. Further, no quantitative data is provided to show that Claimant was exposed to injurious noise levels during his employment at Employer’s Reserve facility. While the experts were all found qualified and credible, the consensus among their opinions was that Claimant’s hearing loss was not attributable to noise exposure. The evidence- 19 -presented weighs in favor of Employer/Carrier. Consequently, Claimant’s claim for benefits is DENIED.
No comments:
Post a Comment