Noise and Hearing Loss

Long Term Occupational Noise Exposure

In essence, evidence of noise levels that workers might encounter at completely different facilities was not sufficiently similar to evidence of noise workers encountered at the Murphy facility in light of all the variables involved in each unique workplace. The evidence also amply supported causation where it included sound survey evidence produced by Murphy (for the earliest periods at issue Murphy had failed to take noise readings and retain records as mandated by OSHA), workers often worked longer hours and in proximity to more pieces of loud machinery than reflected on “dose projections” as part of Murphy’s sound surveys, and expert evidence related each plaintiff’s condition to well-understood mechanisms of permanent hearing loss. Likewise, Murphy failed to comply with OSHA regulations of the Hearing Conservation Amendment of 1971 and failed to implement a hearing protection program for its workers for many years.

Becker v. Murphy Oil Corp.,  No 2010-CA-1519 (La. App. 4th Cir. July 7, 2011)(Belsome, J.)