Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T08:17:45.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

3 Detection of Hearing Loss

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2023

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 100 , Issue S11: Forensic Audiology , 1986 , pp. 9 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Mr Justice Forbes in Abramowicz v The Carborundum Co Lid, 1981, Kemp & Kemp.

[2] Travel fatigue, alcohol, emotional and anxiety states cause variations in consecutive audiograms (Royal Navy Anti-Submarine Department). Identical ambient conditions are necessary; a quiet room is best. Inconsistent results in a dead silent room result from the tendency of the subject to hallucinate (Ransome-Wallis, University of Toronto).

[3] Psychological injury is compensable under English law e.g. nervous shock in Brice v Brown [1984] 1 All ER 997 tain Trugden v Monsanto Chemicals, 6 April 1971, Winchester Assizes, Mr Justice Lawton was not impressed by inconsistencies in the audiogram when the claimant alleged psychogenic deafness after barotrauma. The claimant was also found to be unreliable in court.