Subjective tinnitus can still be used as proof in compensation for tinnitus claim
Tinnitus is distressing for anybody to have. However, it is a huge worry if you are a sufferer and feel like you cannot prove that you have tinnitus in order to claim for compensation for tinnitus. You should be able to, provided that a doctor listens to your symptoms and confirms that this is the case. However, a strong claim can be made if you are suffering from subjective tinnitus as there is a physical test that can be done to prove that a sufferer has tinnitus. This article explains how subjective tinnitus can help a claim.
Tinnitus can be a distressing affliction to have for any sufferer, but more frustration would be if you knew that you had it and nobody could prove it in order for you to receive compensation for tinnitus. This problem arises with the distinction between objective and subjective tinnitus. The first, objective tinnitus, is when a sound can actually be measured by doctor as coming out of the patient’s ear. This sound is usually caused by the physical vibrations occurring within the internal ear. This type of tinnitus is very easy to diagnose and prove – as there is physical proof of its existence. The second type of tinnitus, subjective tinnitus, is not so easy to prove. This type cannot be measured empirically and can only be diagnosed by what the patient describes his or her symptoms to be. At first glance, this would seem to cause problems for anyone who is trying to gain compensation for tinnitus and ear damage. A broken leg can be obviously and physically seen and measured, the extent of a tinnitus ear ‘injury’, when subjective, cannot be measured in the same way.
This was the initial problem that Emma had when she tried to gain compensation for tinnitus from a UK spa hotel for giving her acute tinnitus. The condition was caused by a fire alarm being set off in the room Emma had been staying in. However, the fire alarms had not been updated, they were still the old metal ‘ringers’ that had been commonly used until the 1970s, and the fire alarm itself had been placed the very peculiar position of halfway up the wall, above the head of the bed (fire alarms should be placed in nearer to the ceiling, so that a person will be woken up by it, but not suffer any ear damage as a result). The fire alarm was actually set off by accident by one of the night staff and Emma was awoken by what she describes as a ‘tremendous’ noise. The guests and staff of the hotel gathered in the designated safety point and then returned to their beds when it was announced that the drill had been a mistake and that there was no fire. Emma remembers that it was after she returned to her room, when the fire alarm had been switched off, that she began to hear an odd, ringing sound, especially in her left ear. This left her unable to sleep at the time, though she hoped that it would die down.
However, the ringing noise did not die down and when Emma retuned home, she was faced with the same recurring problem of losing sleep due to this buzzing sound. She decided to visit her GP and described her symptoms to him. Her GP said that her symptoms sounded very much like noise-induced tinnitus and that Emma should do her best to avoid exposure to loud noises from now on. Emma recalls being ‘furious’ at the news, as she knew that it was the unnecessarily loud alarm at the hotel which must have brought on the tinnitus. It was at this point that she decided she wanted to look into making a claim for compensation for tinnitus. As a journalist for a local paper in Lincoln, she had many friends and colleagues who covered cases on compensation claims. Emma decided to take it upon herself to ask one of her colleagues for their advice on the matter. However, the advice Emma received was that she would find it extremely difficult to prove that she had tinnitus as she was suffering from the subjective type – she could not offer any physical evidence for her ailment.
Emma was therefore pessimistic when she approached lawyers to ask about gaining compensation for tinnitus. Her lawyers advised her to go back to her doctor and get a full medical note and examination concerning her subjective tinnitus. Emma did exactly this and returned to her solicitors with the information. The note actually stated that the description of the tinnitus Emma gave, along with the accuracy of her description and obvious lack of sleep was enough to prove beyond reasonable medical doubt that Emma was indeed suffering from acute tinnitus. Emma’s solicitors went on to gain for her the maximum amount of compensation for tinnitus. This case study should show that even though subjective tinnitus cannot be proven, a strong case can still be made and compensation for subjective tinnitus can be gained.