Webber v Charles Sturt University

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Webber v Charles Sturt University [2025] NSWPIC 428
APPLICANT:	Peter Webber
RESPONDENT:	Charles Sturt University
MEMBER:	Fiona Seaton
DATE OF DECISION:	25 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for lump sum compensation for noise induced hearing loss; whether the respondent was the applicant’s last noisy employer; Held – the applicant has sustained noise induced hearing loss; the respondent was the last noisy employer pursuant to section 17; matter remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess the degree of permanent impairment; applicant entitled to payment of reasonably necessary medical expenses.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission determines: 1. The applicant has sustained an injury in the form of noise induced hearing loss which is of such a nature as to be caused by a gradual process. 2. The respondent was the last employer by whom the applicant was employed in employment to the nature of which his injury, noise induced hearing loss, is due for the purposes of s 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act). 3. This matter is to be remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for the assessment of whole person impairment. 4. The applicant is entitled to the payment of reasonably necessary medical or related expenses pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act. The Personal Injury Commission orders: 5. This matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 for assessment as follows: (a) Date of injury: 13 July 2020 (deemed) (b) Body systems/parts: binaural hearing loss (c) Method of assessment: whole person impairment. 6. Documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are: (a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, (b) Reply and attached documents, and (c) applicant’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 29 July 2025 and attached document. 7. The respondent is to pay the reasonably necessary medical or related expenses arising from the applicant’s noise induced hearing loss injury pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Peter Webber, was employed by the respondent as a digital print operator in its printery for at least 10 years until he took a voluntary redundancy on 13 July 2020.
The applicant claims lump sum compensation for 15% binaural hearing loss as a result of his employment with the respondent with deemed date of injury 13 July 2020.
The applicant's claim was initially accepted, and he was provided with hearing aids.
A dispute notice was issued on 16 May 2025 under s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act) disputing liability for the claim on the bases that the respondent is not the last noisy employer and the noise in the applicant's workplace was not capable of causing noise induced hearing loss.
The respondent maintained its decision on 10 June 2025 following internal review.
The applicant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 16 June 2025 claiming lump sum compensation for 15% whole person impairment (WPI).
The dispute was listed for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing on 8 August 2025.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) whether the applicant has sustained hearing loss as a result of employment with the respondent pursuant to s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act);
(b) whether the respondent was a noisy employer and/or the applicant’s last noisy employer pursuant to s 17 of the 1987 Act; and
(c) whether the applicant is entitled to the payment of medical or related expenses pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The parties appeared for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing on 8 August 2025 by audio visual link. Mr Webber was present, and Mr Craig Tanner appeared for him instructed by Ms Bethany Ireland, legal representative. Mr John Gaitanis appeared for the respondent instructed by Mr Jonah White, legal representative, and Mr Hore was also present.
During conciliation the applicant’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated
29 July 2025 was admitted.
I am satisfied the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and considered in making this determination:
(a)    Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) and attached documents;
(b)    Rely and attached documents; and
(c)    applicant’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 29 July 2025 and attached document (ALAD).

Oral evidence

Neither party sought leave to adduce oral evidence.

Applicant’s evidence

The applicant relies on a Statutory Declaration declared on 28 February 2025. This details his employment following his voluntary redundancy with the respondent. He confirms he has not been exposed to any loud noise since ceasing with the respondent in 2020.
The applicant also relies on his statement signed on 27 May 2025.
He started his apprenticeship as a Printing Machinist in 1982 with Riverina Media Group where he was subjected to loud noise from machinery, rollers, conveyors, alarms and signals. He had to shout for about six hours a day to be heard by a colleague at a distance of one metre.
Between 1986 and 2002 he was employed by Moore Paragon as a Printing Machinist where he was exposed to loud noise as described above, and he had to shout for about eight hours a day to be heard by a colleague at a distance of one metre.
From 2003 to 2006 the applicant worked as a Printing Machinist at Active Printing where he was subjected to loud noise as described above as well as from guillotines, and he had to shout for one hour a day to speak to a colleague at a distance of one metre. He considers this employment noisy.
The applicant was employed by the respondent as a Digital Print Operator from 2006 to 2020 where he was exposed to loud noise from envelope and paper folding machinery, and he had to shout for approximately one hour a day to be heard by his colleagues over the noise. He considers this employment noisy.
He has had no exposure to loud noise outside of the workplace. He describes his difficulties as a result of his hearing impairment.
The applicant has been fitted with digital hearing aids which were originally accepted as a part of this claim. These helped him instantly and considerably with his day to day life and he is hopeful they will be replaced as necessary in the future.
The Notice of Injury dated 4 August 2024 given to the respondent shows the last day of his employment as 13 July 2020.
The formal claim for 15% WPI was made by letter on 13 January 2025.
The insurer approved treatment for the provision of hearing aids on 31 January 2025 and a
s 78 of the 1998 Act notice was issued on 16 May 2025. An internal review was sought on
27 May 2025 relying on the applicant’s statement of 27 May 2025 and Mr Allen’s email dated 17 February 2025 referred to below. The decision dated 16 May 2025 was maintained on 10 June 2025.
On 10 July 2020 the respondent confirmed approval of the applicant’s request for voluntary redundancy with the last day of service 13 July 2020.
The applicant’s Statement of Duties as Digital Print Operator is dated 2 November 2009. The role statement includes that this position works in a digital media team to reproduce learning resources and assignments in a high volume environment by operating digital print machines and digital media duplicating equipment, scanning, binding and finishing a range of printed materials as well as assisting in collation, warehousing and despatch operations.
Other duties include the use of guillotines, folding and binding machines, finishing equipment and digital media duplicating equipment.
Mr David Allen, Advisor, Injury Management, Division of Safety, Security and Wellbeing at Charkes Sturt University sent an email on 17 February 2025 regarding the applicant.
The applicant was appointed to the position of Digital Print Operator effective 15 March 2010 and was employed for at least 10 years, giving him prolonged exposure. There are no current employees who worked with him in the same or similar position, and they do not have any operations manuals or other evidence of noise output in respect of the printery equipment. It was reasonable to accept the claim for hearing aids based on the information received to date.
This email attaches the Statement of Duties discussed above. Mr Allen says:
“You will note from this document that Mr Webber was required to operate digital printers, guillotines, folding and binding machines and finishing equipment. In my view, it is more likely than not that the work environment was noisy. The machinery and equipment identified in the position description is probably noisy.”[1]
[1] ARD page 34.

Dr Sharad Tamhane, independent ear, nose and throat physician

Dr Tamhane provides a report to the applicant’s solicitors dated 21 November 2024 relying on the audiogram performed by Specsavers Audiology Wagga Wagga dated 1 July 2024 for the purpose of the assessment and preparation of his report.
The applicant’s employment history includes his apprenticeship as a Printing Machinist from 1982 with Riverina Media Group where he remained for seven years. He was then employed by Moore Paragon for eight years and with various print houses until 2002, including a couple of years working interstate and four years when he was not working.
From 2003 to 2006 the applicant was employed by Snap Printing/Active Printing and from 2006 with the respondent.
During his employments as an apprentice and qualified Printing Machinist he was exposed to very loud noise generated on the printing factory floor from large heavy printing machinery, rollers and conveyors, warning signals and alarms, as well as impact noise from collators and large guillotines.
The applicant was employed on a fulltime basis with additional hours and shifts worked in overtime when required. He wore earplugs and/or earmuffs whenever possible throughout his employment. He ceased employment in 2020.
Dr Tamhane’s opinion is that based on the history obtained, the fact he worked for 34 years in a very noisy environment, he was employed full time with additional hours and shifts worked in overtime as required, the tendencies, incidents and/or characteristics of his employment on the balance of probabilities gave rise to a real risk of boilermaker’s deafness or deafness of a similar origin.
Dr Tamhane recommended the use of bilateral digital hearing aids.
The assessment is made of 15% WPI after a a 10% deduction apportioned to noise exposure during employment outside of New South Wales.
Dr Tamhane provides a supplementary report on 23 July 2025.
In the history provided by the applicant in their consultation on 20 November 2024 he stated he was exposed to the noise of printing machinery for most of his working day with the respondent. This employment exposed him to noise levels of more than 85dB and has contributed to his bilateral noise induced hearing loss.
It is not possible to determine the precise amount of hearing loss caused by his employment with the respondent without a pre-employment hearing test and assessment.
The applicant provided a history of working in Queensland for two years following his employment with Moore Paragon which qualifies for a 10% deduction in accordance with
s 323 of the 1987 Act.
Dr Tamhane maintains his opinion that the respondent was the last noisy employer and is therefore responsible for the applicant’s compensable noise induced hearing loss.

Respondent’s evidence

The respondent relies on the of Digital Print Operator position description and the respondent’s letter of redundancy addressed to the applicant of 10 July 2020 referred to above.

Dr Kenneth Howison, independent ear, nose and throat surgeon

Dr Howison provides a report to the respondent’s insurer on 17 April 2025.
The applicant gave a history of his employments as an apprentice and qualified Printing Machinist from 1982.
This includes employment with Moore Paragon between 1986 and 2002 which was noisy and required him to shout above the noise for most of the working day to be heard by colleagues at a distance of one metre. Dr Howison concludes he was working exposed to an eighthour equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level of LAeq 90dB(A) or above. More than two hours at this level would be sufficient to be responsible for the causation of industrial deafness.
The applicant considers that this employment was his last noisy employment, and Dr Howison agrees Moore Paragon is his last noisy employer.
From 2006 to 2020 the applicant was employed by the respondent as a Digital Print Operator, exposed to the noise of envelope and paper folding machinery requiring him to shout for less than one hour a day to be heard by colleagues at a distance of one metre. Dr Howison therefore does not consider the respondent to be a noisy employer.
Following his examination, Dr Howison considers all frequencies in both ears have been damaged by unacceptable noise levels and he used all frequencies in the calculations for noise induced hearing loss. This represents 17% WPI and hearing aids are reasonably necessary.
Dr Howison comments that his assessment differs from Dr Tamhane’s because Dr Tamhane consulted the applicant by teleconference and was unable to examine his ear drums or carry out his own audiogram. Dr Howison reiterates that Moore Paragon is the last noisy employer and not the respondent. He agrees with Dr Tamhane that all frequencies have been damaged by loud industrial noise but there is no deduction under s 323 of the 1998 Act.
Dr Howison notes the email respondent from Mr Allen is not consistent with the noise exposure described to him by the applicant and Mr Allen did not have manuals indicating the level of noise exposure.
Dr Howison’s supplementary report of 5 May 2025 includes a consideration of the applicant’s Statutory Declaration of 28 February 2025. He concludes the applicant was not exposed to any loud noise since leaving the respondent. His opinion remains that Moore Paragon is the last noisy employer.

Applicant’s submissions

The applicant’s submissions were recorded and form part of the Commission’s record. These are set out below.
In his statement the applicant records his employment in the printing industry for many decades. The circumstances of work in that industry are well known to be noisy.
The critical period of employment in respect of which relief is sought is the period from 2006 until 2020 when the applicant was employed by the respondent as a digital print operator. The applicant’s unchallenged evidence is that he was exposed to loud noise from envelope and paper folding machinery. Moreover, he says he would have to shout for approximately one hour a day to be heard by his colleagues over the noise, and in his opinion, this was noisy employment.
It is necessary to bear in mind that the fact that it was an hour a day that he was required to shout to be heard does not alter the fact that he was exposed to noise throughout the working day on a continuous basis.
This is the case that the respondent itself acknowledges. David Allen notes that the applicant was appointed to the position of digital print operator effective 15 March 2010 and attaches a copy of the appointment. Mr Allen notes the applicant was employed in the digital print operator position for at least 10 years which gives him prolonged exposure.
This is an opinion being provided by a person with a particular interest in workplace safety. Mr Allen is recorded as being an Advisor on Injury Management in the Division of Safety, Security and Wellbeing for the respondent. He would seem to be qualified to comment on questions of workplace safety and in particular for the purposes of this case he comments on the applicant's prolonged exposure to injurious noise.
Mr Allen in his communication notes it may be worthwhile asking the claimant for a copy of his CV to determine whether he had any employment which may have been noisy after
13 July 2020. The applicant has provided a statutory declaration on that issue. Mr Allen was considering whether there was another employer who would be deemed to be the last noisy employer. The clear inference is that Mr Allen certainly accepted that the respondent was a noisy employer. As we know there is no evidence of any subsequent noisy employment.
Mr Allen says you will note the applicant was required to operate digital printers, guillotines, folding and binding machines and finishing equipment. In his view it is more likely than not that the work environment was noisy. The machinery and the equipment identified in the position description is probably noisy. This is the evidence of the employer.
Mr Allen notes that he had attached an Egyptian study into digital printery noise, which indicates that it is generally a noisy work environment. It is well known that the printing industry is a noisy industry. Mr Allen says that they did not have any operation manuals or other evidence of noise output in respect of the printery equipment, so he is basing it on his knowledge of that workplace.
He also says, which confirms the likelihood of noise exposure, that another employee has made an industrial deafness claim. He identifies that employee and notes that she also worked in the printery and that the claim was accepted. It would follow as a matter of common sense that if the applicant was working in the same environment and there is no basis for distinguishing between the claim of the applicant and the other employee’s claim that this was a noisy workplace.
Mr Allen says that it is reasonable to accept the claim for hearing aids and if there has been any further information received that does not support that position, please provide a summary of any opinions provided. There is nothing further from the employer so one can proceed on the basis that what is recorded by Mr Allen comprehensively and accurately records the circumstances of noise in which the applicant worked.
Dr Tamhane provides a medico legal report to the applicant which includes the employment history with a variety of employers for whom the applicant worked. Of relevance is that he says during his employments, that is plural and obviously includes the respondent, as an apprentice printing machinist and then qualified tradesperson he was exposed to very loud noise generated on the printing factory floor. That is consistent with the applicant's own evidence and indeed the evidence of the employer as recorded in the communication from Mr Allen.
Dr Tamhane states that the applicant was exposed to loud noise generated by large heavy printing machinery, rollers and conveyors, warning signals and alarms, as well as impact noise from collators and large guillotines.
The doctor records that the applicant wore earplugs and/or earmuffs whenever possible throughout his employment, in other words in employment which included the last noisy employment with the respondent. The clear inference is that if earplugs were necessary, it is likely the worker was being exposed to noise.
On the history provided by the applicant the doctor says the fact that he has worked for
34 years in a very noisy environment, that he was employed on a full time basis with additional hours and shifts worked in overtime when required, his opinion is that the tendencies, incidents and/or characteristics of the applicant’s employment on the balance of probabilities gave rise to a real risk of boilermakers deafness or deafness of a similar origin.

The doctor then says that the last noisy employer was the respondent. This opinion is consistent with the evidence of the employer at itself as recorded in Mr Allen’s communication. He then notes that the applicant has been exposed to continuous loud noise for 34 years and he could not wear ear protection all the time. There is no suggestion from the respondent that its workplace was one where it was unnecessary to wear ear protection.
In his further report of 23 July 2025 Dr Tamhane says in the history provided by the applicant in the consultation on 20 November 2024 he stated he worked as a printer for the respondent and was exposed to the noise of printing machinery for most of his working day. This employment exposed him to noise levels of more than 85dB and has contributed to his bilateral noise induced hearing loss.
The doctor then notes the audiogram is a reflection of the total accumulative noise induced hearing loss as a result of the applicant’s employment with the respondent and his previous employments. In other words, the injury is cumulative and gradual and there is nothing to distinguish the exposure the applicant encountered in the course of his employment with the respondent.
Dr Tamhane says noise induced hearing loss is accumulative and progressive, and it affects both ears similarly. Without a pre-employment hearing test and assessment, it is not possible he says to determine the precise amount of hearing loss caused by employment with the respondent, which as we know is not necessary. The primary inquiry is who the last noisy employer was and in the applicant’s submission the undisputed evidence of the applicant and the concession of the employer has the effect that the injurious nature of his employment with the respondent is not in dispute.
Against all of that evidence the respondent seeks to avoid liability on the basis of the opinion of Dr Howison. In Dr Howison’s first report dated 17 April 2025 there is a discussion where clearly in the course of Dr Howison’s engagement with the applicant the applicant indicates that his employment with Moore Paragon was his last noisy employment.
That is not what the applicant says in his statement of 27 May 2025 where he says he considers the employment with the respondent noisy. Dr Howison’s report would have to be viewed with some circumspection.
Dr Howison says from 2006 to 2020 the applicant was employed by the respondent as a digital printer and once again he explained he was exposed to noise of envelope and paper folding machinery and would have to shout for less than one hour a day, which is a diminution of the applicant’s statement evidence. The conclusion that the respondent is not a noisy employer does not match up with the employer’s evidence. Dr Howison’s opinion has questionable weight.
The matter should be remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of WPI.

Respondent’s submissions

The respondent’s submissions were recorded and form part of the Commission’s record. These are set out below.
The dispute notice of 16 May 2025 puts injury in dispute and disputes the respondent was a noisy employer.
Dr Howison’s opinion is the employment with the respondent did not expose the applicant to noise capable of causing noise induced hearing loss and the respondent was not the last noisy employer. The doctor went one step further and says the last noisy employer was in fact Moore Paragon where the applicant worked between 1996 and 2002 and the respondent asks that be accepted. Noise in that workplace was a lot more significant than with the respondent.
The next dispute notice on 10 June 2025 includes that the applicant was only exposed to high levels of noise with the respondent for approximately one hour per day.
The onus rests with the applicant to produce evidence sufficient to give rise to a finding of noise induced hearing loss in accordance with Shire Council v Lobley,[2] and by looking at the tendencies, incidents or characteristics of the employment being of a type which could give rise to the injury in fact suffered.
[2] (1995) 12 NSWCCR 52 (Lobley).
The applicant describes having to shout for about six hours a day as an apprentice printing machinist with the loud background noise to be heard by a colleague at a distance of one metre, which provides a context and perspective that is qualitative and quantitative. At Moore Paragon he had to shout for eight hours a day with the loud background noise to be heard by a colleague at a distance of one metre, again providing a context and perspective.
While employed by the respondent as a digital print operator, as opposed to an old fashioned machinist he was previously, he was exposed to loud noise from envelope and paper folding machinery and had to shout for approximately one hour a day to be heard by his colleagues over the noise. On that basis Dr Howison forms the view that Moore Paragon is the last noisy employer and not the respondent.
Dr Howison moreover had regard to what the applicant has actually told him, that he considers this employment was his last noisy employment. Dr Howison takes a history that includes at Moore Paragon the applicant was exposed to an eight-hour equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level of 90dB or above, and more than two hours would be sufficient to cause industrial deafness. Dr Howison did not consider the respondent to be a noisy employer.
Dr Tamhane in his first report makes the error of being quite non-specific and lumping all the employments together and he has really not made any effort to look at the tendencies, incidents and characteristics of each employment. The doctor says during his employments, not employment with the respondent, he was exposed to very loud noise generated on the printing factory floor. His opinion is based on the fact the applicant worked for 34 years in a very noisy environment on a full-time basis and the tendencies, incidents and/or characteristics of his employment gave rise to a real risk of boilermakers deafness. There is no effort to delineate the extent of the noise in each employment. This is a deficiency in the applicant’s evidence, and it does not satisfy the applicant’s onus.
It is not sufficient to say there is some noise and as the last employer the respondent chronologically is the last noisy employer.
Dr Tamhane’s report of 23 July 2025 does not adequately remedy this deficiency. The doctor talks of being exposed to noise of printing machinery for most of his working day, and to noise levels of more than 85dB which has contributed to the applicant’s bilateral noise induced hearing loss. It is not clear where he infers there is 85dB or whether he has concluded that on the basis of what has been told to him. The doctor is unable to determine the precise amount of hearing loss caused by employment with the respondent, but he maintains his opinion that it is the last noisy employer. There needs to be better evidence in the respondent’s submission by way of history, by way of explanation and by the applicant himself of the tasks he carried out with the respondent that were noisy.
Dr Howison in his report of 17 April 2025 says the applicant was exposed to noise with the respondent but it was insufficient to lead to the causation of noise induced hearing loss.
Dr Tamhane consulted the applicant by teleconference and was unable to examine his eardrums or carry out his own audiogram.
The other important feature of Dr Howison’s report is that he notes the email from Mr Allen is not consistent with the noise exposure described by the applicant, and Mr Allen did not have manuals indicating the level of noise exposure. The respondent’s submission is Mr Allen’s email is not in contemplation of these proceedings although it can be inferred it was in relation to the claim for hearing aids, it is not on oath and it has not been sworn, and Mr Allen’s competency to judge what is noisy under the Act is queried.
Mr Allen says in his view it is more likely than not the work environment is noisy. Some caution should be exercised in accepting these statements from Mr Allen. He works there and he is not able to say definitively whether the work environment is noisy, only that it is more likely than not noisy. Mr Allen says the machinery and equipment identified in the position description is probably noisy. This cannot be regarded as decisive and there are some real questions about this opinion. He has not told us about the tendencies, incidents or characteristics which is the legal test.
Mr Allen’s observation about a co-worker could not be regarded as an admission by the respondent or as tendency evidence where we have no further evidence. It is not permissible to draw the inference that there is a tendency or that the workplace was noisy on the basis of that evidence.
Dr Howison provides a more cogent explanation than Dr Tamhane and the applicant accepts Moore Paragon was the last noisy employer. Dr Howison uses the calculus of the history including speaking to colleagues in each employment to form his opinion that the respondent was not the last noisy employer.

Applicant’s submissions in reply

The only relevant question is whether the applicant was exposed to injurious noise levels with the respondent and his prior employment makes no difference. The employment with the respondent had the tendencies, incidents and characteristics likely to give rise to hearing loss.
The evidence from the applicant himself is not in dispute. The respondent seeks to avoid liability without presenting any evidence as to the noise in the workplace. It relies only on the medico legal opinion from someone who has never set foot in the workplace.
It is relevant that Mr Allen is an Adviser, Injury Management of the employer in the Division of Safety, Security and Wellbeing. It is his job to identify matters of safety and obviously whether the workplace exposed employees to injury.
Dr Tamhane is said to have lumped all the employers together and it is correct he refers to a range of levels of noise the applicant was exposed to during the course of employment with a variety of employers, but that range does include the exposure in the course of his employment with the respondent.
Mr Allen provides the detail of the applicant being required to operate digital printers, guillotines, folding and binding machines and finishing equipment. That evidence is not in dispute and is evidence the respondent has provided. Mr Allen’s evidence is unchallenged.
The applicant needs to establish on the balance of probabilities that he was exposed to noise by reason of the machinery and equipment he was required to utilise in the course of his employment and the respondent’s evidence is consistent with a noisy workplace. It makes no difference whether Moore Paragon was noisy.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

Was the respondent a noisy employer and/or the applicant’s last noisy employer

There is no dispute in this case that the applicant has sustained an injury in the form of a loss of hearing which is of such a nature as to be caused by a gradual process. Both Dr Tamhane and Dr Howison agree the applicant has sustained noise induced hearing loss as a result of his employment.
There is disagreement on whether the respondent was a noisy employer and/or the applicant’s last noisy employer.
Section 17 of the 1987 Act contains special provisions in respect of hearing loss injuries caused by a gradual process.
Section 17(1)(a)(ii) deems the hearing loss injury to have happened on the last day on which the worker was employed in an employment to the nature of which the injury was due. Section 17(1)(c)(ii) states that compensation is payable by the last employer by whom the worker was employed in an employment to the nature of which the injury was due before he or she gave notice of the injury.
The applicant is required to establish that the employment with the respondent was of such a nature as to be capable of causing boilermaker’s deafness relying on evidence that the ‘tendencies, incidents or characteristics’ of the employment were of such a type which could give rise to his hearing loss.[3]
[3] Lobley, Dawson & Ors t/as The Real Cane Syndicate v Dawson [2008] NSWWCCPD 35 at [35].
The applicant does not necessarily need to rely on expert evidence to establish noise levels, and it is possible for him to discharge his onus through his evidence and appropriate medical evidence.[4]
[4] Dawson & Ors t/as The Real Cane Syndicate v Dawson [2008] NSWWCCPD 35 at [37]-[43].
Evidence of the extent and duration of the noise exposure must be sufficiently detailed and given to an expert for their opinion as to whether the ‘tendency, incidents or characteristics’ of that employment are such as to give rise to a real risk of boilermaker’s deafness.[5]
[5] Dawson & Ors t/as The Real Cane Syndicate v Dawson [2008] NSWWCCPD 35 at [4].
If the applicant establishes the respondent was a noisy employer, then the respondent will be the last noisy employer in accordance with the applicant’s statutory declaration of
28 February 2025, referred to in Dr Howison’s supplementary report of 5 May 2025.
In my view the applicant has discharged his onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that the ‘tendencies, incidents or characteristics’ of his employment with the respondent were of a type which could give rise to his noise induced hearing loss for the reasons that follow.
There is no evidence of the actual noise levels at the respondent’s printery in the period the applicant was employed. I note Mr Allen’s comment that the respondent’s printery workers were made redundant and there are no comparable employees, as well as there being no operations manuals or other evidence of noise output in respect of the printery equipment.
The available evidence supports a finding that the applicant worked full time in the respondent’s printery for over 10 years, and that he had prolonged exposure to noisy machinery and equipment.
The applicant’s statement evidence is that between 2006 and 2020 while employed by the respondent he was exposed to noise from envelope and paper folding machinery, and he would have to shout for approximately one hour a day to be heard by his colleagues over the noise. The applicant considers this employment noisy.
The applicant’s unchallenged evidence finds support in the email from Mr Allen.
The respondent’s Statement of Duties for the Digital Print Operator position includes operating digital printers in a high volume work environment, use of guillotines, folding and binding machines, finishing equipment and digital media duplicating equipment, and assisting with collation, storage and warehousing.
I accept the applicant’s submission that the inference is able to be drawn that in Mr Allen’s opinion the respondent was a noisy employer.
Mr Allen confirms the applicant was employed by the respondent as a Digital Print Operator for at least 10 years giving him prolonged exposure, and the machinery and equipment identified in the applicant’s position description is probably noisy. Acceptance of the hearing aids claim made by the applicant is reasonable in the circumstances in Mr Allen’s personal view.
Whether the noise level is sufficient to cause boilermaker’s deafness is not evidence that can be given by a lay person.[6]
[6] Combined Civil Pty Ltd v Rikaloski [2007] NSWWCCPD 181 at [23].
Dr Tamhane provides expert evidence of noisy machinery and equipment in the respondent’s printery and the period over which the applicant was exposed to that noise.
Dr Tamhane refers to documents received by him including the applicant’s work history. Dr Tamhane sets out in the applicant’s employment history that from 2006 he was employed by the respondent. During his employments as a full-time apprentice printing machinist and qualified tradesperson the applicant was exposed to very loud noise generated on the printing factory floor generated by large heavy printing machinery, rollers and conveyors, warning signals and alarms as well as impact noise from collators and large guillotines.
Dr Tamhane’s opinion based on the history he obtained of the applicant’s work for 34 years in a very noisy environment on a full time basis with additional hours and shifts worked in overtime when required, is that the tendencies, incidents and/or characteristics of his employment on the balance of probabilities gave rise to a real risk of boilermakers deafness or deafness of a similar origin. The last noisy employer was the respondent.
In his supplementary report Dr Tamhane comments that the applicant worked as a printer for the respondent and was exposed to the noise of printing machinery for most of his working day. This employment exposed him to noise levels of more than 85dB and has contributed to his bilateral noise induced hearing loss. Dr Tamhane maintains his opinion that the respondent is the last noisy employer.
The respondent submits it is not clear how Dr Tamhane infers there are noise levels of more than 85dB. I accept however that Dr Tamhane has taken a sufficient history from the applicant and relies on his expertise in providing his opinion.
The respondent submits Dr Tamhane did not have the advantage of physically examining the applicant or carrying out his own audiogram. There is no evidence suggesting there is a deficiency in Dr Tamhane’s opinion as a result of not physically examining the applicant or relying on the audiogram performed by Specsavers Audiology Wagga Wagga.
I accept the evidence of the applicant which finds support in the email of Mr Allen, and Dr Tamhane’s opinion. I afford less weight to Dr Howison’s opinion in this case for the following reasons.
Dr Howison does not consider the respondent to be a noisy employer and in his opinion the exposure to noise with the respondent was insufficient to lead to the causation of noise induced hearing loss.
Dr Howison notes the applicant explained he was exposed to the noise of envelope and paper folding machinery.
While the applicant’s statement evidence also refers to exposure to loud noise from envelope and paper folding machinery, Dr Tamhane records the applicant stating he was exposed to the noise of printing machines for most of his working day.
The Statement of Duties for the applicant’s position refers to noisy machinery and equipment in a high volume work environment with digital printers, the use of guillotines and binding machines, finishing equipment and digital media duplicating equipment as well as collation equipment.
It appears Dr Howison was provided with the Statement of Duties as he comments that Mr Allen’s email of 17 February 2025, to which this was attached, is not consistent with the noise exposure described to him by the applicant.
Dr Howison notes the applicant considers Moore Paragon as his last noisy employment. The applicant does not state this in his statement evidence. His statement evidence is that he would have to shout for about eight hours a day at Moore Paragon and approximately one hour a day with the respondent and he regards employment with the respondent as noisy.
Dr Howison records that the applicant would have to shout for less than one hour a day above the noise at the respondent’s printery to be heard by colleagues at a distance of one metre. As the applicant submits, his statement evidence is that he would have to shout for approximately one hour a day to be heard by his colleagues over the noise. There appears to be little practical effect in this case resulting from any inconsistency.
I agree generally with the respondent’s submission that noting the hours each day during which the applicant was required to shout to be heard in his various employments provides a useful context within which to consider noise levels. This does not lead to a conclusion however that the evidence of a shorter period of shouting required at the respondent’s printery means it was not a noisy workplace.
I accept the applicant’s submission that any earlier noisy employment is not relevant to a consideration of whether employment with the respondent had the tendencies, incidents or characteristics of the type that could give rise to industrial deafness.

There is evidence of the period of the applicant’s exposure to noise of over 10 years while employed by the respondent, and there is evidence from Dr Tamhane of the noise level to which he was exposed.
Weighing all the evidence, the applicant’s employment with the respondent had the tendency, incidents or characteristics of the type that could give rise to industrial deafness and he has met the onus.
The applicant’s claim for lump sum compensation will be remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the degree of the applicant’s permanent impairment, and there will be a general order with respect to payment of reasonably necessary medical or related expenses that result from the applicant’s noise induced hearing loss.

SUMMARY

The respondent was a noisy employer and the applicant’s last noisy employer in accordance with s 17(1)(a)(ii) of the 1987 Act.
The matter will be remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the degree of the applicant’s permanent impairment as a result of noise induced hearing loss.
There will be a general order that the applicant is entitled to the payment of reasonably necessary medical or related expenses pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act.

[2025] NSWPIC 428

25 August 2025