MCRI No. 33

Military Compensation Scheme

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act)

SUBJECT – CONSIDERATION OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF HEARING:

• ATTRIBUTED TO EXPOSURE TO EXCESSIVE NOISE IN THE COURSE OF DUTIES IN THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE, AND
• WHERE IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER CLAIMS UNDER THE “TRANSITIONAL” PROVISIONS OF THE SRC ACT.

1. Purpose
   1. The purpose of this MCRI is to advise MCRS staff regarding the manner in which claims for compensation for loss of hearing attributed to service in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) potentially many years earlier should be considered and determined.

2. Background
   1. Liability to pay compensation for loss of hearing which is attributed to ADF service many years after discharge has always been a difficult matter to determine.  It is not uncommon in the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service (MCRS) for Delegates to consider claims in which a loss of hearing suffered by a member or former member (from here on referred to as a “claimant”) is attributed to (alleged) exposure to excessive noise during ADF service 40 or 50 years earlier.
   2. Whether it is reasonable to accept that a loss of hearing can reasonably be attributed to noise exposure during ADF service is a question which Delegates must decide having regard (among other things) to:

•     any medical and/or audiological evidence which may be available regarding the likely cause of the loss of hearing;
•     the likelihood of the claimant's actually having been exposed to excessive noise during service in his/her employment category/categories;
•     the availability of medical records to establish whether the claimant ever complained of hearing problems during service or at the time of discharge;
•     audiometric testing carried out at the time of enlistment and/or discharge;
•     the likelihood of the claimant's having been exposed to excessive noise after discharge; and
•     the possible influence of age-related factors (e.g., presbyacusis) or other probably non-compensable factors (e.g., ear infections) on the claimant's perceived loss of hearing.

3. MCRI 12 gives a comprehensive description (in Part 4) of the provisions of section 16 of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930 (the 1930 Act) and the circumstances in which it might be considered relevant in considering claims for compensation which are lodged now.  This MCRI should therefore be read in conjunction with MCRI 12 where the claim appears to have been lodged “out of time”.

3. Considerations of “Late Notice” and “Late Claim”
   1. For notice of an accident, injury, or disease to be considered “acceptable” despite a delay in giving notice, a claimant needs to establish either that the Commonwealth has not been prejudiced by the late notice or that the failure to give notice was a result of a mistake, absence from Australia or other reasonable cause.  For a late claim for compensation to be accepted for consideration, a claimant need only establish that the failure to lodge a claim in time (within the six month period from date of “injury”) was a result of a mistake, absence from Australia or other reasonable cause.  It should be noted here that “ignorance” of one's right to claim compensation is not considered to be either a mistake or other reasonable cause for failing to do so.
   2. Delegates are reminded that in all cases in which the provisions of section 16 of the 1930 or sections 53 or 54 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (the 1971 Act) appear to be relevant, Delegates should note that an attempt should be made to obtain the discharge statement completed by the employee, usually just before the time of discharge from the ADF.  Members of the ADF were often asked on the discharge statement whether they had claimed compensation or whether they intended to lodge a claim. 
   3. Regardless of whether the member answered “Yes” or “No” to such a question, it would obviously be unacceptable were the member to claim later that he or she was unaware of the right to claim compensation if the relevant question was in fact answered and the discharge statement was signed by the claimant.  A “Yes” answer to such a question can also be useful in alerting a Delegate to the possibility that there may already have been a claim (perhaps decades earlier) which may have been determined at the time.  A search for an old compensation file could in such circumstances avoid much unnecessary investigation in relation to the more recent claim.
   4. On the face of it, it might appear that the Commonwealth is prejudiced by the fact that a claimant did not give notice of an injury or damage to his/her hearing (or to claim compensation benefits for such a loss of hearing, ignoring the fact that prejudice is not relevant to a late claim) until many years after discharge from the ADF.  This should not be automatically assumed and appropriate investigations should be undertaken.  This, in itself, does not constitute acceptance of the claim for consideration.
   5. Potential prejudice to the Commonwealth can take many forms including, but not limited to, the following:

•     the unavailability of medical evidence now which might reasonably be expected to have been available to the Delegate had the required notice of accident or injury been given earlier;
•     the death of a witness to a claimed incident involving injury, or the inability to ascertain the whereabouts of such a witness many years after the incident is alleged to have occurred;
•     the death of, or the inability to contact a medical practitioner who may have seen the claimant at a relevant time;
•     the destruction of (or the inability to obtain) Department of Defence service, medical or other records in the years since the claimant was discharged from the ADF.  It may well be that such records would have been helpful in confirming, for example, the likelihood of the claimant's having been exposed to excessive noise in the course of his/her duties in the ADF, or whether he/she complained of a specific episode of hearing loss during service.

6. If it is decided that the Commonwealth has not been prejudiced by any lack of notice of an injury, and that a claim for compensation can be admitted for consideration under the SRC Act, whether it is reasonable to accept that a claimant's loss of hearing is probably related to his/her service in the ADF is a separate matter which requires appropriate investigation.  If a claim is lodged for a hearing loss and/or tinnitus (ringing in the ears), where the claimed condition is attributed to exposure to excessive noise during the claimant's ADF service, the Delegate who considers the claim must be satisfied that it is in fact probable that the claimant was so exposed during service.  Whether the claim relates to service either before or after the introduction of the SRC Act on 1 December 1988, Delegates should routinely try to obtain copies of both service (personnel) and service medical documents relating to the claim for loss of hearing or tinnitus (assuming that full relevant documents are not provided when the claim for compensation is lodged).
7. Examination of the personnel records should indicate the type(s) of service undertaken by the claimant during his/her period of service and may also indicate the likelihood of the claimant's having been exposed to excessive noise as a result of his/her duties in the ADF.   It would, for example, be more reasonable to accept that excessive noise exposure occurred in the case of an Infantry Soldier or a Tank Commander than would probably be the case for a Medical Officer or a Cook.  While it is common for claimants for compensation for loss of hearing (and often tinnitus) to assert constant exposure to excessive noise during service, such an assertion may not be objectively justifiable, given the information contained in the claimant's service personnel and medical documents.  In other words, a claimant's assertion of exposure to excessive noise may not be objectively justifiable, even if post discharge audiological or other medical evidence supports the claim on the basis of the claimant's assertion.
8. A particularly relevant factor is, of course, whether there are service medical record(s) to indicate either that the claimant complained of a loss of hearing or tinnitus at some particular time(s) during service or at the time of discharge.  For example, there may be indication in the claimant's medical records that he/she complained of ringing in the ears after a rifle range shoot or artillery firing.  Such evidence would be particularly helpful in that it may be indicative and supportive of an actual loss of hearing suffered during service.
9. Ultimately, it is a matter for the Delegate to decide whether it is in fact likely that the claimant's service probably exposed him or her to excessive noise, or if there is sufficient objective evidence to justify such a finding.  If the evidence, when taken as a whole, does not indicate that it is more likely than not that the claimant was exposed to excessive noise for more than minimal periods during service, then it may be appropriate to determine (in a particular case) that there is no probability of a connection between ADF service and the loss of hearing or tinnitus for which compensation is sought. 
10. On the other hand, if the evidence available in a particular case satisfies the Delegate that it is probable that the claimant was subjected to excessive noise for more than minimal periods during service or that the claimant suffered from a loss of hearing or tinnitus during service as indicated by a documented complaint(s) of such a loss or tinnitus either during service or at the time of discharge, it would be appropriate for the Delegate to arrange for the claimant's examination at Hearing Services Australia (HSA), which was previously known as the National Acoustics Laboratory. 
11. While HSA are the acknowledged Australian experts in the field of hearing assessment, Delegates may consider it appropriate in some cases to seek (further) opinion as appropriate from a treating specialist in the field of hearing assessment.  This will only be appropriate if the specialist can be relied upon to provide a fully informed and objective opinion regarding the extent of any hearing loss and opinion as to its probable relationship to the claimant's service in the ADF.  However, for the sake of consistency, the MCRS should favour using HSA to provide assessments in the very great majority of cases.  In either event, HSA or the specialist should, of course, be provided with a summary of the case including the Delegate's conclusions regarding the probability of the claimant's having been exposed to excessive noise during service in the ADF and copies of all relevant service personnel and medical documents.
12. If the report which is subsequently received from HSA (or from a suitably qualified treating specialist), indicates that at least a part of the assessed loss of hearing from which the claimant suffers is probably a result of service in the ADF, then it would be appropriate to find liability accordingly and to award lump sum compensation for the assessed “compensable” loss of hearing.  It should be noted that the amount of lump sum compensation payable should be determined having regard to the rates of compensation which were payable at the time of the claimant's discharge from the ADF (i.e., in 1953, 1959, 1968 or whatever).  This is on the basis that a loss of hearing due to exposure to excessive (compensable) noise in the ADF will not deteriorate after exposure to such noise has ceased.  The latest possible date for cessation of such noise during service will be the date of discharge.  If this date is used in calculating the compensation payable, the claimant will receive the greatest possible benefit even though his/her last exposure to excessive noise may in fact have occurred some time before date of discharge.
13. In all hearing loss cases (including SRC Act cases), the “date of injury” or date of effect should be determined to be:

•     if there is a service medical record or other documentary evidence of a single specific incident of excessive noise trauma; the date of that incident, or
•     in most cases, the date of the employee's discharge from the ADF.

14. If the employee has been discharged and he/she is awarded a lump sum payment of compensation for the assessed “compensable” loss of hearing, the award of the lump sum is a one time payment.  There can be no justification for any further lump sum compensation for any later deterioration of hearing, again on the basis that a loss of hearing is suffered at the time of compensable exposure to excessive noise, not many years after such noise exposure ceases.

4. Defence Compensation Advice (DCA) Number 33
   1. DCA 33 (and Comcare Operational Advice Number 79) set out a special policy in relation to “Transitional” cases involving claims for loss of hearing.  The policy arose because of the original requirement after 1 December 1988 that there be a permanent whole person impairment (WPI) of 10 per cent or more before lump sum compensation could be awarded for a loss of hearing.  10 per cent WPI due to a hearing loss equates to 20 per cent binaural loss of hearing; a significant hearing loss. 
   2. It should be noted here that amendments to the SRC Act which were made by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2001 (the SRCOLA Act) on 1 October 2001 effectively reduced the WPI threshold from 10 per cent to 2.5 per cent.  The new threshold applies to all hearing loss WPIs where the “Date of Injury” is on or after 1 October 2001 or where exposure to excessive noise during ADF service continued after that date.
   3. The policy originally detailed in DCA 33 continues to apply in cases where:

•     a claim for compensation for loss of hearing is made after 1 December 1988;
•     the loss of hearing WPI is less than 10 per cent (i.e., 20 per cent binaural hearing loss) or 2.5 per cent WPI (5 per cent binaural loss of hearing) where “compensable” noise exposure occurs on or after 1 October 2001; and
•     the exposure to excessive noise causing the loss of hearing occurred in part during the currency of the 1930 Act or the 1971 Act.

4. The DCA 33 policy allows a serving ADF member (or one who served and was discharged after 30 November 1988) and who does not meet the relevant hearing loss thresholds (10 per cent from 1 December 1988 until 30 September 2001 or 2.5 per cent after 1 October 2001) to elect either:

•     to have the percentage of loss of hearing which was probably suffered due to service prior to 1 December 1988 calculated, and receive a lump sum payment of compensation in accordance with the rates of compensation payable under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (the 1971 Act) as at 30 November 1988; or
•     to defer assessment and claim the whole loss later under the SRC Act if the WPI reaches 2.5 per cent or more (where the member continues to serve and where exposure to excessive noise continues after 1 October 2001).

5. The policy outlined above can also be applied in a case of a former ADF member who served in the ADF both before and after 1 December 1988, who was discharged before the reduction in required WPI threshold to 2.5 per cent with effect from 1 October 2001 and who would not otherwise have an entitlement to lump sum compensation (because of the 10 per cent WPI threshold requirement which applied from 1 December 1988 until 30 September 2001).  In such cases, the claimant can be compensated having regard to section 39 of the 1971 Act for that part of the loss of hearing calculated to have occurred before 1 December 1988.  However, it should be noted that lump sum compensation cannot be paid for the effect of any tinnitus from which the employee may claim to suffer since (neither the 1930 Act nor) the 1971 Act provided for payment of such lump sum compensation.

5. Calculation of loss of hearing which probably existed before 1 December 1988
   1. In those cases where the DCA 33 policy can or should be applied, the percentage loss of hearing which probably existed immediately before 1 December 1988 can be calculated in accordance with the following formula:

Years of pre 1-12-1988 noise exposure   x   total binaural hearing loss

Total years of compensable noise exposure

2. It should be noted that, in some cases, an employee who claims for a loss of hearing will have undergone audiometric testing (an audiogram test) within say one year of 30 November 1988 (the day before the SRC Act commenced).  In such cases, it will not be necessary to estimate (in accordance with point 5.1 above) a loss of hearing from which the employee probably suffered at that time.  In such a situation, the audiometric test results should be referred to HSA with all relevant details and with an explanation that although the earlier audiogram may not have been conducted under ideal conditions, it would be appreciated if HSA could assess both the current loss of hearing and the loss of hearing, if any, which was suffered as indicated by the relevant audiogram from the late 1980s.
3. When HSA's report is received, if it indicated that the loss of hearing as indicated by the late 1980s audiogram was, for example 13.3 per cent, but that the current assessed loss is say 7.6 per cent, lump sum compensation would be payable having regard to section 39 of the 1971 Act for 7.6 per cent loss of hearing, again with no allowance for any tinnitus from which the employee may claim to suffer.  However, if the assessments were reversed (7.6 per cent in the late 1980s and 13.3 per cent currently), lump sum compensation would be payable for the lesser assessed loss (7.6 per cent) - please see point 3.12 above for the reason.
4. Similarly, if the employee underwent audiometric testing at or near the time of his/her discharge (e.g., in the late 1960s or early 1970s), the audiogram taken at that time should be referred to HSA for assessment of any compensable loss of hearing it may have indicated.  Again, lump sum compensation can be awarded either for the loss indicated by the earlier audiogram or on the basis of any current loss of hearing assessed by HSA as probably being due to ADF service, whichever is the lesser assessment.  The lump sum entitlement would be determined having regard to the rates applicable at the time the employee was discharged from the ADF.

6. Specialist Medical Evidence regarding loss of hearing
   1. HSA has advised that the formula detailed in Part 5.1 above will, where necessary, estimate with reasonable accuracy the percentage of binaural hearing loss or percentage loss of hearing (PLH) from which an employee was probably suffering as at 30 November 1988.  HSA has also advised that:

•     a PLH of 20 (i.e., 10 per cent whole person impairment) is a serious hearing loss, in the sense that a person with this amount of hearing loss  typically needs to use a hearing aid(s) in order to be able to understand what other people are saying.  Only a small proportion of people who suffer from a PLH of less than 10 (5 per cent WPI) need to use a hearing aid but, as PLH increases from 10 to 20, the proportion needing to use a hearing aid increases rapidly until, at a PLH of 20, almost all need to use a hearing aid(s);
•     any PLH greater than 0 has some effect in functional terms, although for PLH of less than around 5 (2.5 per cent WPI), the effect is slight and may not be noticed by the person who suffers the loss of hearing;
•     a PLH of 10 impacts in very definite ways on the functional capacity of the person.  Earplugs which are properly and deeply inserted into the auditory canals simulate a PLH of about 10 and enable the impact of a PLH of 10 to be experienced in terms of communicating with others.  It should be noted that the functional effects of hearing loss are generally less noticeable to people with impaired hearing than they are to those who have to communicate with them;
•     to the best of HSA's knowledge, there is no data on the distribution of PLH in industry generally, or even in particular industries.  Information concerning the expected distribution of PLH in a particular industry can be provided as a function of exposure duration if the typical noise exposure level in that industry is known;
•     PLH tends to be linearly proportional to the duration and extent of exposure to excessive noise.  In other words, there appears to be a directly proportional increase in loss of hearing as a result of exposure to excessive noise at particular levels and over specific periods of time; and
•     once exposure to excessive noise ceases, hearing loss due to such exposure does not increase.  In the absence of further exposure to excessive noise, any increase in loss of hearing would be due to factors other than noise exposure (e.g., natural ageing factors such as presbyacusis, or to ear infection leading to conductive hearing loss).

7. Policy
   1. Where notice of injury and/or a claim for compensation is lodged “out of time” (having regard to the requirements of section 16 of the 1930 Act or sections 53 and 54 of the 1971 Act), Delegates must consider whether the notice is acceptable and whether the claim is admissible for consideration under the Transitional provisions of the SRC Act - please see MCRI 12 and paragraphs 3.1 to 3.5 above for information regarding the basis on which such a decision should be made.
   2. If a “late” claim for compensation is considered to be admissible for consideration on its merits, and if a Delegate is satisfied that it is reasonable to conclude that the claimant was probably exposed to excessive noise in the course of his/her ADF service (such a decision may be based on a combination of the claimant's attributing statement, type of service and any documentary evidence which may be available from the claimant and/or from the Department of Defence), then arrangements should be made as a matter of course for the claimant to be examined, and for his/her hearing to be tested, at HSA.
   3. If the audiological report from HSA (or other suitably qualified specialist) and other evidence which is available in a given case satisfies the Delegate that it is probable that there is a connection between a loss of hearing suffered and factors associated with the claimant's service in the ADF, then liability to pay compensation should be determined in the claimant's favour for that part of the loss of hearing which is probably related to ADF service.  It might also be appropriate to find liability for tinnitus in some cases.  In other words, even if there is little, if any, documentary evidence to establish that the claimant complained of a loss of hearing during service or at the time of discharge, it may still be appropriate to find the Commonwealth liable to pay compensation if:

•     the Delegate is satisfied that the claimant was probably exposed to excessive noise in the course of his/her ADF duties; and
•     medical evidence from HSA (and/or other sources) indicates that it is probable that all or part of the loss of hearing is due to exposure to excessive noise; and
•     the Delegate is satisfied that the claimant was probably not exposed to excessive noise either in a work situation or in recreational pursuits after the claimant was discharged from the ADF.

4. However, if the Delegate is satisfied by the medical and other available evidence that:

•     the claimant was probably not exposed to excessive noise for more than minimal periods while serving in the ADF, or
•     the loss of hearing suffered is probably not due to exposure to excessive noise, or
•     the claimant was probably exposed to excessive noise at work after discharge (e.g., work for extended periods in the “building” trade or in any other inherently noisy occupation) or in recreational pursuits (e.g., regular participation in rifle or pistol shooting or regular attendance at “rock” concerts) after discharge; then

liability to pay compensation for the loss of hearing should be denied, where appropriate after giving the claimant a final opportunity to provide further evidence to substantiate the claim.

5. The attached table sets out generally the manner in which claims for lump sum compensation for loss of hearing are to be considered and determined, having regard to periods of ADF service and the date of employees' last (compensable) noise exposure.  It assumes that the Delegate is satisfied that there is liability to pay compensation for all or part of a loss of hearing suffered by a claimant as a result of his/her service in the ADF.  The table includes the effect of DCA 33 which is described in detail at Parts 4 and 5 above.  DCA 33 is revoked from the date of this MCRI.  However, the effect of that DCA continues to apply by virtue of this MCRI.

8. Enquiries
   1. Any questions regarding this MCRI should be directed to Mr John M Vidler on (02) 6289 4851 or by e-mail at john.vid — l — er@dva.g — ov.au or to Mr Craig Boyd on (08) 9366 8571 or by e-mail at craig.boyd@dva.gov.au

Mark Travers

Director

Policy and Procedures Section

MCRS National Office – Canberra

      April 2003

9. References

•     MCRI 19 : Amendment to the SRC Act – Compensation payable for hearing loss under s 24
•     DCA 14 : Procedure for Determining Percentage Loss of Hearing
•     DCA 33 : Permanent Impairment - Assessment of Compensation Payable for Loss of Hearing
•     Comcare Operational Advice Number 79 : Permanent Impairment - Assessment of Compensation Payable for Loss of Hearing
•     Comcare Operations Manual vol.13, pt.6 : Loss of Hearing

TEXT OF LETTER WHICH SHOULD BE SENT TO THE EMPLOYEE IF HE/SHE HAD CONTINUOUS SERVICE IN THE ADF BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER 1 DECEMBER 1988 AND WHERE THE ASSESSED PERMANENT WHOLE PERSON IMPAIRMENT DUE TO HEARING LOSS IS LESS THAN THE THRESHOLD APPLICABLE AT THE RELEVANT TIME (10 PER CENT FROM 1 DECEMBER 1988 UNTIL 30 SEPTEMBER 2001 AND 2.5 PER CENT ON AND AFTER 1 OCTOBER 2001) AND THERE WAS NOT AN AUDIOMETRIC TEST OF THE EMPLOYEE IN THE LATE 1980S.

Dear ?????????

I refer to your claim for compensation for loss of hearing (and tinnitus) which you attribute to your period of service in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) in the (e.g., late 1950s, early 1960s etc).

The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) which commenced on 1 December 1988 introduced a new system for determining the compensation payable for permanent whole person impairment (WPI) arising from a “compensable” injury.  Under the SRC Act, lump sum compensation is not payable for a compensable loss of hearing in cases such as yours unless the assessed WPI is 10 per cent/2.5 per cent, or 20 per cent/5 per cent binaural loss of hearing respectively (delete as appropriate pre or post 1 October 2001).

The medical evidence which is available in your case indicates that the WPI due to your loss of hearing is .... per cent, or ?? per cent binaural loss of hearing.  Therefore, lump sum compensation would not normally be payable under the SRC Act in your case.  However, since it is reasonable to conclude that you were/have been (delete as appropriate) exposed to noise throughout the ?? years of your service in the ADF, it is also considered reasonable to assume that a percentage of your hearing loss occurred before the SRC Act came into operation on 1 December 1988.  Lump sum compensation could be paid in your case for that part of your hearing loss which occurred before December 1988.  This is because before that time, there was no “threshold” requirement for percentage loss of hearing before lump sum compensation could be awarded.

Since noise induced hearing loss tends to increase in proportion to the duration of exposure to excessive noise, it is possible to assess (with reasonable accuracy) the percentage loss of hearing from which you probably suffered before December 1988. Your loss at that time is estimated to have been .... per cent.  This estimate is based on the fact that you served for ?? years before December 1988 and for ?? years after that time.  Therefore, of your total period of service of ?? years, the hearing loss caused during the ?? years of your service before December 1988 would probably be (fraction - e.g., 14/20ths) of the assessed loss of hearing from which you suffer.

This would have entitled you to a lump sum compensation payment of $????? had your claim for compensation for your loss of hearing been assessed in late November 1988.

If you wish, the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service will treat your claim for compensation as a claim for that part of your hearing loss which probably occurred before December 1988.  The effect would be an entitlement to the lump sum amount I have mentioned.  However, I will not make a decision to award you lump sum compensation unless you advise me as to how you wish your entitlement to be assessed.  Before making that decision you should note that:

• (Serving member) - acceptance of the lump sum payment of compensation of $???? based on .... per cent binaural loss of hearing would mean that no further lump sum compensation would be payable unless there were an increase in your binaural loss of hearing at least a further 5 per cent (2.5 per cent WPI) due to continued service in the ADF after the date on which your hearing was last assessed, OR
• (Member who was discharged after 1 December 1988) - acceptance of the lump sum payment of compensation of $???? based on .... per cent binaural loss of hearing would mean that no lump sum compensation would be payable in your case for any loss of hearing which may have occurred on or after 1 December 1988.

• if your claim for lump sum compensation for your loss of hearing were determined strictly in accordance with the requirements of the SRC Act, it would be necessary for me to determine that no such compensation is payable at all in your case.

Please advise me in writing within 28 days whether you wish to:

• have your claim treated as being for hearing loss suffered before 1 December 1988 and accept the lump sum of $?????; or
• have your claim determined under the SRC Act, in which case it would be determined that lump sum compensation for WPI is not payable in your case.

If  you do not contact me within 28 days of the date of this letter, I will assume that you do not wish to proceed with your claim for lump sum compensation and your claim for that type of will be considered to have been withdrawn.

If you have any questions about the advice contained in this letter, I can be contacted by telephone on 1300 550 461.

Yours sincerely

???????????????

Delegate SRC Act

Date of Injury	Date of Last Exposure to (Compensable) Noise	Binaural Hearing Loss (BHL)	Effect on Entitlement to Compensation for Hearing Loss
Transitional Cases
pre 1 Sept 1971	pre 1 Sept 1971	Any degree of loss assessed as being due to ADF service	Entitled to receive lump sum compensation having regard to 1930 Act rates payable at time of last ADF exposure
post 31 August 1971 and pre 1 Dec 1988	pre 1 Dec 1988	Any degree of loss assessed as being due to ADF service	Entitled to receive lump sum compensation having regard to rates payable at time of last ADF exposure
pre 1 Dec 1988	post 30 Nov 1988 & pre 1 Oct 2001	less than 20%	Entitled to elect to be considered having regard to 1971 Act and paid pro-rata lump sum amount for period of exposure under the 1971 Act OTHERWISE Not entitled to compensation under the SRC Act as 20% threshold not reached and exposure to noise has ceased
pre 1 Dec 1988	post 30 Nov 1988 & pre 1 Oct 2001	20% or more	Entitled to lump sum compensation – all paid under SRC Act
pre 1 Dec 1988	post 30 Sept 2001	less than 5%	Entitled to elect to have claim considered having regard to 1971 Act and paid pro-rata amount for period of exposure under the 1971 Act OR wait until BHL meets 5% post SRCOLA threshold (if still serving)
pre 1 Dec 1988	post 30 Sept 2001	5% or more	Entitled to lump sum compensation – all paid under SRC Act
SRC Act Cases
post 30 Nov 1988	pre 1 Oct 2001	less than 20%	Not entitled to lump sum compensation (WPI threshold not met)
post 30 Nov 1988	pre 1 Oct 2001	20% or more	Entitled to lump sum compensation at appropriate rates under SRC Act
SRCOLA Act Cases
post 30 Nov 1988 & pre 1 Oct 2001	post 30 Sept 2001	less than 5%	Not entitled to lump sum compensation (WPI threshold not met)
post 30 Nov 1988 & pre 1 Oct 2001	post 30 Sept 2001	5%-19%	Entitled to lump sum compensation under post SRCOLA threshold – not required to pro-rata between SRC Act & SRCOLA periods
post 30 Nov 1988 & pre 1 Oct 2001	post 30 Sept 2001	20% or more	Entitled to lump sum compensation at appropriate rates under SRC Act
post 30 Sept 2001	post 30 Sept 2001	less than 5%	Not entitled to lump sum compensation (WPI threshold not met)
post 30 Sept 2001	post 30 Sept 2001	5% or more	Entitled to lump sum compensation at appropriate rates under SRC Act

NOTES1SRCOLA refers to the amendments to the Safety, Rehabilitation

and Compensation Act 1988 which were made by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2001 which received Royal Assent on 1 October 2001

2Whole Person Impairment (WPI) = binaural loss of hearing ÷ 2