An ACTION driver who claimed his hearing was damaged by decades spent sitting in noisy buses has lost an appeal in his battle for compensation.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Laurence O'Kane worked as an ACTION bus driver for 30 years, full time between 1974 and 1996, then part time until 2004.
He claimed his hearing was damaged due to his exposure to the loud, continuous noise of the buses, as well as a ''high-pitched'' scream let out by ticket validators when they jammed.
The driver also complained about a two-way radio used in the buses in the 1980s that could not be adjusted and emitted a constant stream of noise.
Mr O'Kane said noise trauma, combined with the effects of ageing and his family's disposition to hearing loss, left him with bad hearing.
He also claimed his hearing was damaged by a violent episode in 1996, in which he was ''king hit'' at a hotel in the ACT.
The blow knocked him to the floor, and he smashed the right side of his head.
It took six months for Mr O'Kane to recover from his injuries, but he still suffered from persistent hearing loss.
Mr O'Kane was assaulted at the same hotel five years later, and subsequently took a hearing test. It found he had hearing loss and would require hearing aids.
He made two claims for compensation, the first for hearing loss in both ears and tinnitus - a constant ringing in the ears - and the second for the permanent impairment he suffered because of those conditions.
Mr O'Kane claimed his employment had played a role in his hearing loss, along with the other factors.
After initially accepting his claim, Comcare later knocked it back.
Mr O'Kane took the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which ruled in October that it was not satisfied with the evidence, including reports from two medical experts that the hearing loss was caused by his work.
He then appealed to the Federal Court on 15 grounds, and a judgment was delivered on Wednesday morning. The Federal Court dismissed Mr O'Kane's appeal, finding the tribunal had not erred in reaching the decision.
The issue of costs will be decided at a later date.