Claimant's Request for Additional Compensation for Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Denied
📌 In brief
The claimant requested additional compensation for hearing loss, tinnitus, and hyperacusis after a car accident. The Civil Resolution Tribunal reviewed the claim and found that the insurer's assessment was correct according to the law.
⚖️ Legal holding
Under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and the Permanent Impairment Regulation, the insurer's assessment of permanent impairment compensation is correct if it follows the statutory formula and criteria.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The insurer correctly assessed the hearing loss impairment rating according to the statutory formula.
- The insurer correctly assessed the tinnitus impairment rating according to the statutory formula.
- The insurer reasonably applied a 2.5% rating for hyperacusis, considering it under vestibular impairment due to lack of specific guidance.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant failed to prove he had diagnosed misophonia, thus not entitled to compensation for it.
- The claimant argued for a higher overall impairment rating, but the court found the statutory formula was correctly applied.
- The claimant's argument that the legislation provides inadequate compensation was not accepted by the court.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The claimant argued that the insurer underestimated his impairment from bilateral tinnitus and hearing loss, and failed to grant sufficient compensation for hyperacusis and possible misophonia.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the insurer's assessment was correct because it followed the statutory formula and criteria outlined in the law.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Insurance (Vehicle) Act, s. 129, and the Permanent Impairment Regulation, sections 10, 148, 150, and 152 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the claimant's assertion that the insurer's assessment was incorrect and did not account for all his impairments.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that their impairment assessment follows the statutory criteria and formulas.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents that mattered included medical reports from audiologists and the insurer's assessment letters.