Hearing loss - armed forces compensation scheme
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: WILTSHIRE
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hearing loss - armed forces compensation scheme
I have heard rumours of a £2k compensation if you are down graded to H2 due to you're work enviroment. Does anybody have any more info. Ta!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
While still serving or once you have left?
I was "lucky" a colleague who is more profoundly deaf than I am got nothing. My disabilty was defined at around 4% - that was cruical to keep me below an overall 20%.
If you are less than 20% disabled then you will be awarded a one-off sum. 20% and more you will get a pension.
If your award based on less than 20% was, say £4500, but a 20% pension was say £1500, and you were reassessed at 20% inside 3 years then you pension would become payable after that initial award was used up.
The RBL can best advise.
I was "lucky" a colleague who is more profoundly deaf than I am got nothing. My disabilty was defined at around 4% - that was cruical to keep me below an overall 20%.
If you are less than 20% disabled then you will be awarded a one-off sum. 20% and more you will get a pension.
If your award based on less than 20% was, say £4500, but a 20% pension was say £1500, and you were reassessed at 20% inside 3 years then you pension would become payable after that initial award was used up.
The RBL can best advise.
I thought that this scheme had gone away ....
....a long time ago.
One chap I knew heard this being discussed in the bar at lunchtime (yes, it was a long time ago) and decided that it was a really good wheeze (he was a bit mutt and Geoff anyway). So at next annual medical laid on the "EH? DOC -speak up a bit". "Ooooer" says the quack best we do a proper evaluation.
"Very sorry Fred we'll have to withdraw your aircrew med cat. Buggah!!
He lost his flying pay for his last two years of service. Double buggah!
He was wingeing in the bar later about why people had thought it was a good deal.
It had to be explained in one syllable words that you did this pantomime on the DISCHARGE MEDICAL, not before.
However, as he is no longer with us I suppose that "de mortuis nil nisi bonum" should restrain my additional comments.
The Ancient Mariner
One chap I knew heard this being discussed in the bar at lunchtime (yes, it was a long time ago) and decided that it was a really good wheeze (he was a bit mutt and Geoff anyway). So at next annual medical laid on the "EH? DOC -speak up a bit". "Ooooer" says the quack best we do a proper evaluation.
"Very sorry Fred we'll have to withdraw your aircrew med cat. Buggah!!
He lost his flying pay for his last two years of service. Double buggah!
He was wingeing in the bar later about why people had thought it was a good deal.
It had to be explained in one syllable words that you did this pantomime on the DISCHARGE MEDICAL, not before.
However, as he is no longer with us I suppose that "de mortuis nil nisi bonum" should restrain my additional comments.
The Ancient Mariner
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time was that the system seemed to set up to avoid paying out anything. Hearing loss was assessed below 2500 Hz (About Middle C on a piano) However most military induced hearing loss (whistling jets, gunfire, propeller whine etc) occurs above this frequency. My hearing graph falls like the North face of the Eiger but only above 3500 HZ!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: WILTSHIRE
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for all replies.
I am led to believe that you can have the compensation whilst serving but it is a one off payment, so it is best to be claimed on leaving in case you're hearing gets worse whilst still serving.
SL
I am led to believe that you can have the compensation whilst serving but it is a one off payment, so it is best to be claimed on leaving in case you're hearing gets worse whilst still serving.
SL
That £2K has to be a joke!?
I am not deaf at all (in my opinion) but I got £1500 13 years ago.
Go to the Royal British Legion for advice and get the job done properly - DO NOT get messed with RAF or any other associations.
RBL has expertise in this and understands better than all others what is required for compensation cases.
Best of luck.
I am not deaf at all (in my opinion) but I got £1500 13 years ago.
Go to the Royal British Legion for advice and get the job done properly - DO NOT get messed with RAF or any other associations.
RBL has expertise in this and understands better than all others what is required for compensation cases.
Best of luck.
My advice would be to read up on this and claim.
The legal position, explained to those who have a duty of care, is that as soon as a technical solution becomes available, the clock runs on litigation. There is a brief period of grace while the project is approved. If the MoD wants to seek a waiver from the legislation, the Secretary of State must sign it. I’ve never seen one, although one may exist. The intent of the legislation is such that waivers are temporary and to meet an urgent requirement.
For aircrew who wear helmets (as opposed to headsets), the clock began running in 1997. After that date, MoD haven’t a leg to stand on. To be fair to OR branches in London, on 25.8.98 they sought advice on how to initiate a Tri-Service aircrew hearing protection project (the idea was to establish an IPT). However, the reply from MoD(PE), dated 1.9.98 and in the form of a Board Submission seeking the funding to kick off the programme, was buried as there was too much opposition from on high.
I mention this because, if pursued, MoD are likely to claim the clock runs from issue of the Defence Technology Strategy (2007, page 129). Even then, when asked at the time, the Centre said the DTS was only an initial acknowledgement there may be a problem; which was disingenuous given the technical solution (at 85dB(A)) had been in service for 11 years and upgraded to meet new legislation (75dB(A)) in 2001. As a result of the DTS, the Nimrod IPT (for example) issued an ITT in 2007 to conduct a Research and Development contract into the concept, with an aim of achieving 85dB(A). When one bidder pointed out the spec they were seeking had been obsolete since 2001, and a better solution was actually in service, the MD was bollocked and the company effectively blackballed. That’s what you’re up against.
Best of luck. If you want the ANY of the above evidence, PM me.
The legal position, explained to those who have a duty of care, is that as soon as a technical solution becomes available, the clock runs on litigation. There is a brief period of grace while the project is approved. If the MoD wants to seek a waiver from the legislation, the Secretary of State must sign it. I’ve never seen one, although one may exist. The intent of the legislation is such that waivers are temporary and to meet an urgent requirement.
For aircrew who wear helmets (as opposed to headsets), the clock began running in 1997. After that date, MoD haven’t a leg to stand on. To be fair to OR branches in London, on 25.8.98 they sought advice on how to initiate a Tri-Service aircrew hearing protection project (the idea was to establish an IPT). However, the reply from MoD(PE), dated 1.9.98 and in the form of a Board Submission seeking the funding to kick off the programme, was buried as there was too much opposition from on high.
I mention this because, if pursued, MoD are likely to claim the clock runs from issue of the Defence Technology Strategy (2007, page 129). Even then, when asked at the time, the Centre said the DTS was only an initial acknowledgement there may be a problem; which was disingenuous given the technical solution (at 85dB(A)) had been in service for 11 years and upgraded to meet new legislation (75dB(A)) in 2001. As a result of the DTS, the Nimrod IPT (for example) issued an ITT in 2007 to conduct a Research and Development contract into the concept, with an aim of achieving 85dB(A). When one bidder pointed out the spec they were seeking had been obsolete since 2001, and a better solution was actually in service, the MD was bollocked and the company effectively blackballed. That’s what you’re up against.
Best of luck. If you want the ANY of the above evidence, PM me.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Rigga, my experience mirrors yours. However my friend's mirrors Tums.
Sometime before 1999, the compensation was generous, as the MOD could be, and given generously. Then they tightened up an tightened more.
Inititally we were told not to wear headsets on the flight line as we would not hear a shouted warning. Then we would be around jets engine running etc etc. Around 1976 on the Nimrod we had a number of audiometric scientists measuring the audio levels and trialling different types of headset. The ones we used then were simple plastic shells carrying an earpiece.
Proper audiometric testing was introduced around then too.
At the same time, when we visited Keflavik we used to cadge the USN earplugs. I even had an appointment with a USN(R) Cdr who tested my hearing and provided a set of plugs in my size. Can you imagine an RAF doc doing that?
By 1981 we had proper headsets with a level of noise attenuation.
By 1990 you could not move on the flight line without hearing protection.
This shows both an acceptance by aircrew, and a realisation by the system, going back to the early '70s.
Notwithstanding active measures taken to protect aircrew hearing (I can't speak for groundcrew) there still existed a gap in protection. For instance one place I worked had a 'noise tunnel' outside which captured the noise of jets taking off. It was not concentrated noise but sufficient to continue to exacerbate an initial problem.
As an aside, one part of my frequency loss was in a range often attributable to gunfire. I never told them that we had a full-bore shooting range at school which was in a quarry and we had no hearing protection at all.
Sometime before 1999, the compensation was generous, as the MOD could be, and given generously. Then they tightened up an tightened more.
Inititally we were told not to wear headsets on the flight line as we would not hear a shouted warning. Then we would be around jets engine running etc etc. Around 1976 on the Nimrod we had a number of audiometric scientists measuring the audio levels and trialling different types of headset. The ones we used then were simple plastic shells carrying an earpiece.
Proper audiometric testing was introduced around then too.
At the same time, when we visited Keflavik we used to cadge the USN earplugs. I even had an appointment with a USN(R) Cdr who tested my hearing and provided a set of plugs in my size. Can you imagine an RAF doc doing that?
By 1981 we had proper headsets with a level of noise attenuation.
By 1990 you could not move on the flight line without hearing protection.
This shows both an acceptance by aircrew, and a realisation by the system, going back to the early '70s.
Notwithstanding active measures taken to protect aircrew hearing (I can't speak for groundcrew) there still existed a gap in protection. For instance one place I worked had a 'noise tunnel' outside which captured the noise of jets taking off. It was not concentrated noise but sufficient to continue to exacerbate an initial problem.
As an aside, one part of my frequency loss was in a range often attributable to gunfire. I never told them that we had a full-bore shooting range at school which was in a quarry and we had no hearing protection at all.
Ground crew?
Pontius that's most enlightening but I wonder what the situation is regarding ground-crew deafness caused by working in close proximity to jet engines.
I am currently being assessed by my local ENT consultant for tinnitus and progressive deafness which they say could only be caused by extensive exposure to Jet noise.
I have not so fond memories of defective ear defenders leaking Glycerine down my collar and being told no more in stock put tissue paper in them that helps, this both in the UK and the Far East but a long way in the past now!
CDR
I am currently being assessed by my local ENT consultant for tinnitus and progressive deafness which they say could only be caused by extensive exposure to Jet noise.
I have not so fond memories of defective ear defenders leaking Glycerine down my collar and being told no more in stock put tissue paper in them that helps, this both in the UK and the Far East but a long way in the past now!
CDR
Last edited by cliver029; 24th Jun 2012 at 15:55. Reason: punctuation
There is of course the other source of hearing damage; gunfire. Older members may recall that groundcrew were expected to be proficient in using the .303 rifle, and that has got an earshattering crack in, as most old men with hearing aids will testify, the right ear.
As PN says, in the seventies walking around helicopters without ear defenders or helmets was normal and little can beat the sound of the intakes of a Puma. I suffer from high tone deafness and tinitus to a mild degree, not ehough to effect a medical, but enough for me to have received a one off payment.
Interestingly they wrote to me a few years later and told me that as my condition had not deteriorated I was not entitled to any further payments.
How did they know?
As PN says, in the seventies walking around helicopters without ear defenders or helmets was normal and little can beat the sound of the intakes of a Puma. I suffer from high tone deafness and tinitus to a mild degree, not ehough to effect a medical, but enough for me to have received a one off payment.
Interestingly they wrote to me a few years later and told me that as my condition had not deteriorated I was not entitled to any further payments.
How did they know?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius that's most enlightening but I wonder what the situation is regarding ground-crew deafness caused by working in close proximity to jet engines.
We are the same age and my experiences are also from a long time ago, demobbed in 1971 after nine years as groundcrew. No jets, total service life on Shacks.
In 2002 during an offshore medical I was advised to think about getting hearing aids against the probability of failing the next one. The examining doctor also asked if I had served in the RAF and spent time near engines as my deafness (high tone) was typical of that.
I decided to make a claim which was rejected. On appeal I was invited to attend a tribunal where I was represented by the RBL.
The appeal was also turned down on the grounds that my hearing loss had worsened since leaving the service therefore the MoD was not responsible for my condition. Shortly before I left the RAF all first line groundcrew at Ballykelly were given an audio test similar to that done on medicals which would have demonstrated my hearing standard on demob. We were not given a copy of the results at the time nor could the MoD produce a record of the test for the tribunal.
As someone mentioned before, get help from RBL, don't represent yourself. If you can show that your hearing now is as it was on demob it's important. The rationale is that once you are removed from the noisy environment ie engines, your hearing should not deteriorate further.
Also if you appeal a rejected claim MoD are obliged to provide you with a copy of your service medical record showing your joining and release medical examinations.
Good luck
Last edited by Shack37; 24th Jun 2012 at 17:07.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
If you can show that your hearing now is as it was on demob it's important. The rationale is that once you are removed from the noisy environment ie engines, your hearing should not deteriorate further.
hearing loss that was probably caused by excessive noise exposure,
with superimposed age-related changes
with superimposed age-related changes
This seems a well used reference:
http://hannaziegler.tripod.com/ent/varia/rabinowi.pdf but seems to support age-related change theory.
Here is another:
Noise-Induced Hearing Loss - Weill Cornell Department of Surgery
I wonder if there is any contrary research?
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 24th Jun 2012 at 17:51.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a typical 'trust me I'm a Doctor' response'. Essentially noise induced hearing loss is a on-off (they say). Any deterioration after you have been removed from that environment is due to aging (they say).
I agree with you. It was because of a doctor's comments initially that I made the claim. Unfortunately it was on the opinion of the Tribunal's doctor, a Professor no less, that my appeal was rejected for the reason mentioned. My RBL representative told me on the way out of a comment made by this Professor....."MoD 3 Claimants 0, not a very Christmassy outcome"
If I could make an observation. Most of the posts are discussing a period in time when a viable technical solution was not available, so all parties accept "**** happens" (a legal term) and a small amount of compo is paid. Akin to being wounded in the line of duty.
It is another thing altogether for a viable and cost effective solution to be available, but MoD knowingly abrogate their duty of care to save money. The line is crossed. This is made even worse when the solution is introduced into one aircraft type, but a deliberate decision made not to broaden the fit. On what basis was the lucky aircraft/crew selected? What makes it even worse is MoD owns the IPR to, probably, the best design around, yet a scattergun approach to procurement means a raft of different, and far less effective, systems are in service. Of course, it is entirely possible MoD doesn't actually realise they own the design, given the pan-MoD initiative died a death 12 years ago. Witness the Nimrod example I cited.
It is another thing altogether for a viable and cost effective solution to be available, but MoD knowingly abrogate their duty of care to save money. The line is crossed. This is made even worse when the solution is introduced into one aircraft type, but a deliberate decision made not to broaden the fit. On what basis was the lucky aircraft/crew selected? What makes it even worse is MoD owns the IPR to, probably, the best design around, yet a scattergun approach to procurement means a raft of different, and far less effective, systems are in service. Of course, it is entirely possible MoD doesn't actually realise they own the design, given the pan-MoD initiative died a death 12 years ago. Witness the Nimrod example I cited.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
While Tuc's comment, **** happens, is no doubt true so is the comment about the way noise was treated in different groups.
In a particular role the CoC was far more concerned with driving the chinagraph line up the graph, with meeting its tasking, with getting good taceval scores - which ever way their promotion exams were assessed.
To battle for an expensive and diversionary issue such as noise attentuation or building insulation (when efficiency and economy measures were not part of the exam) was nuggatory.
My point had been that the problem was widely recognised in aircrew trades by the mid-70s and in other trades probably earlier the most obvious solution, albeit expensive, was to remove, or reduced the exposure, of those with hearing loss from the environment.
I was downgraded in about 1980 but not told that hearing protection would mitigate against further loss or that removal from the environment would stop further loss. Instead I was posted to Shackletons.
From a personal point of view I would have preferred to remain flying but from an audiometric point or view I should have been re-roled to a quieted aircraft.
Was this a failure in duty of care as early as 1980 or simply that the issue, while increasingly recognised outside the medical profession had not reached the Air Sec's Department?
In a particular role the CoC was far more concerned with driving the chinagraph line up the graph, with meeting its tasking, with getting good taceval scores - which ever way their promotion exams were assessed.
To battle for an expensive and diversionary issue such as noise attentuation or building insulation (when efficiency and economy measures were not part of the exam) was nuggatory.
My point had been that the problem was widely recognised in aircrew trades by the mid-70s and in other trades probably earlier the most obvious solution, albeit expensive, was to remove, or reduced the exposure, of those with hearing loss from the environment.
I was downgraded in about 1980 but not told that hearing protection would mitigate against further loss or that removal from the environment would stop further loss. Instead I was posted to Shackletons.
From a personal point of view I would have preferred to remain flying but from an audiometric point or view I should have been re-roled to a quieted aircraft.
Was this a failure in duty of care as early as 1980 or simply that the issue, while increasingly recognised outside the medical profession had not reached the Air Sec's Department?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Yookay
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pardon
I went to the docs and said I had hearing problems, he said "what are the symptoms?", I said a cartoon family from America.......
seriously......MoD may be looking at a a trial for a new cure for Tinnitus very shortly a little bird shouted in my ear last week.
seriously......MoD may be looking at a a trial for a new cure for Tinnitus very shortly a little bird shouted in my ear last week.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 59
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the early 1990s, I was diagnosed with tinitus which the doctor at Wroughton wrote down was due an incident when I was in a civilian aircraft which depressurised. I didn't see my notes at the time nor did I know he had written that in my notes.
I left in 2006 and due to knee trouble and having to have operations on them, I put a claim in for a war pension. On the form, I also put down that I had hearing loss and tinitus. I was tested but the claim was rejected due to the incident on a civilian aircraft and not being on duty as well as it being age related.
As I could not remember being on a civilian aircraft, I checked through my notes and was travelling by RAF AT around that time, I was not on any civil aircraft at all. I said all that to the War Pension people and they made a note. Where the Doc got that from I have no idea at all....
I was sent to be examined by an audiologist. He determined that my hearing loss was age related and it didn't add anything to my pension for knees....I was 46 when tested!
On reflection, I should have looked at the appeals and got the RBL involved - I didn't as I was so surprised at being awarded a WP for my knees that I didn't push it.
I left in 2006 and due to knee trouble and having to have operations on them, I put a claim in for a war pension. On the form, I also put down that I had hearing loss and tinitus. I was tested but the claim was rejected due to the incident on a civilian aircraft and not being on duty as well as it being age related.
As I could not remember being on a civilian aircraft, I checked through my notes and was travelling by RAF AT around that time, I was not on any civil aircraft at all. I said all that to the War Pension people and they made a note. Where the Doc got that from I have no idea at all....
I was sent to be examined by an audiologist. He determined that my hearing loss was age related and it didn't add anything to my pension for knees....I was 46 when tested!
On reflection, I should have looked at the appeals and got the RBL involved - I didn't as I was so surprised at being awarded a WP for my knees that I didn't push it.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
November4, good news. That you have no allowance for your hearing is quite normal.
The shysters initially graded me at 19% - hearing 4% and back at 15% - ergo a grant but no pension.
A while later I applied for a reassessment and was regraded 20% for my back this giving a total of 20%. The next grade (or degrade) would give 40%.
You can apply for a reassessment at any time. Be advised that from the time the reassessment forms are sent you have a limited time in which to gather the evidence and return them. IIRC it is 3 months (may be 6). After a successful reassessment a new award dates from the date you applied and not the date of assessment.
Another tip is to take your other half with you. You will have coped with your problems for some time and got used to modifying your behaviour such that you don't notice. Mrs OH OTOH will have noticed that you can only get up stairs one leg leading or one step rather than two. You take a lift when ever you can. You avoid certain activities etc etc.
The assessing doctor I had was completely independent and if anything biased towards me. I was also 'fortunate' to be going through a bad spell. I had a good write up from my own GP and an even better one from my Chiropractor (both free).
The shysters initially graded me at 19% - hearing 4% and back at 15% - ergo a grant but no pension.
A while later I applied for a reassessment and was regraded 20% for my back this giving a total of 20%. The next grade (or degrade) would give 40%.
You can apply for a reassessment at any time. Be advised that from the time the reassessment forms are sent you have a limited time in which to gather the evidence and return them. IIRC it is 3 months (may be 6). After a successful reassessment a new award dates from the date you applied and not the date of assessment.
Another tip is to take your other half with you. You will have coped with your problems for some time and got used to modifying your behaviour such that you don't notice. Mrs OH OTOH will have noticed that you can only get up stairs one leg leading or one step rather than two. You take a lift when ever you can. You avoid certain activities etc etc.
The assessing doctor I had was completely independent and if anything biased towards me. I was also 'fortunate' to be going through a bad spell. I had a good write up from my own GP and an even better one from my Chiropractor (both free).
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 59
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the advice PN.
I was initial classed at 30% but after the 2nd op, I updated the pension people that I had another just to keep their records straight. They sent out another Doc as "I had applied for reassessment". He then made it 40% for knees and back. Happy with that.
I have to say that the assessing Doctors (apart from the audiologist) were definitely on my side and wanted to assess me fairly. Both said they would try and get me as much as they could. 1 was ex RAMC and the other was ex-Police FME.
Well would be happier if I was not in pain so not be eligible for a war pension....
I was initial classed at 30% but after the 2nd op, I updated the pension people that I had another just to keep their records straight. They sent out another Doc as "I had applied for reassessment". He then made it 40% for knees and back. Happy with that.
I have to say that the assessing Doctors (apart from the audiologist) were definitely on my side and wanted to assess me fairly. Both said they would try and get me as much as they could. 1 was ex RAMC and the other was ex-Police FME.
Well would be happier if I was not in pain so not be eligible for a war pension....