Opinion
Argued February 7, 1975
April 17, 1975.
Workmen's compensation — Partial loss of hearing — The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act 1915, June 2, P.L. 736 — Accident — Unusual pathological result — Noise.
1. The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act 1915, June 2, P.L. 736, provides no benefits for a partial loss of hearing sustained by an employe unless the employe sustained a compensable accident. [368]
2. A compensable accident may be established through proof that an unexpected definable event or events occurred under ordinary work conditions and caused a sudden onset of an unexpected pathological condition, but evidence that a loss of hearing might be due to the noise level at the place of employment is insufficient to establish such an accident. [368-9]
Argued February 7, 1975, before Judges KRAMER, ROGERS and BLATT, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1004 C.D. 1974, from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Allen Stolsky v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, No. A-67941.
Petition with Department of Labor and Industry for workmen's compensation benefits. Petition denied. Petitioner appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Denial affirmed. Petitioner appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Allen Stolsky, appellant, for himself.
John E. O'Connor, Chief Counsel, State Workmen's Insurance Fund, and James N. Diefenderfer, for appellees.
The critical issue in this case is whether or not the claimant, Allen Stolsky, has sustained his burden of proving that he has suffered a disability due to an accident under the provisions of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act.
Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P. S. § 1 et seq.
The claimant had been employed for approximately thirteen years as an operator of computers and data processing equipment with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. In February of 1971 he was assigned to new equipment which apparently produced a higher noise level than the equipment which he previously operated. He claims that he then developed a ringing in his ears and that he now suffers a disability as a result of partially impaired hearing and hypersensitive ears. The referee concluded "that claimant has failed to prove the happening of an accident in the course of his employment within the meaning and definition of The Workmen's Compensation Act." The Board affirmed and this appeal followed. We affirm.
We have stated that "the Workmen's Compensation Act does not provide benefits for a partial loss of hearing, unless the claimant proves a compensable accident." Hinkle v. H. J. Heinz Company, 7 Pa. Commw. 216, 225, 298 A.2d 632, 636 (1972). As we also said in Hinkle, an accident in a case such as this is established where the claimant has shown an unexpected definable event, or series of events, occurring under ordinary conditions of work, which caused a sudden onset of an unexpected pathological result. The claimant here, however, has failed to prove an unexpected occurrence at work, or that his condition was caused by some specific event. His medical testimony indicates at best that his loss of hearing "might be related to the noise level." Under our holding in Hinkle, this is clearly insufficient to meet his burden of proof. We, therefore, issue the following
ORDER
AND, NOW this 17th day of April, 1975, the decision and order of disallowance by The Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board is hereby affirmed.