Cook and Telstra Corporation Limited (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for compensation by Mr Cook against Telstra Corporation Limited. Mr Cook sought further compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss, alleging an increase in his hearing loss of 5% or more, stemming from his accepted noise-induced hearing loss during his employment with Telstra. The dispute centred on whether the deterioration in Mr Cook's hearing constituted an "injury" or "disease" under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) and whether Telstra was liable for this further impairment.

The court was required to determine whether Mr Cook's hearing loss constituted an "injury" or "disease" for the purposes of the Act, and crucially, whether there had been an increase in the degree of permanent impairment of 5% or more as a result of his accepted noise-induced hearing loss. This would determine his eligibility for further compensation under sections 24 and 27 of the Act.

The court considered the evidence of Mr Cook and Dr Allison, an expert called by Telstra. Dr Allison's reports and oral evidence indicated that while loud noise damages hair cells in the cochlea, this damage does not typically worsen once noise exposure ceases. Dr Allison opined that Mr Cook's significant hearing deterioration, particularly the absence of a characteristic "notch" at the 4kHz frequency in recent tests and the widespread decline across all frequencies, suggested causes other than noise-induced hearing loss, such as hereditodegenerative factors or presbycusis. The court found no corroborating evidence of further noise exposure after Mr Cook ceased employment with Telstra, nor evidence that Telstra was responsible for any such post-employment damage. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Cook's further hearing loss was attributable to his accepted compensable condition or that there had been a significant increase in impairment warranting additional compensation under the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision, finding that no additional compensation was payable to Mr Cook under sections 24 and 27 of the Act.