Throughout an employee’s career, spanning approximately 40 years, he worked around noisy, heavy machinery. Following a hearing assessment when he was 59, he was declared to be permanently unfit for his normal duties due to noise-induced hearing loss. He was, therefore, forced to retire permanently before the age of 65.
What is the content of the presumption entailing that such noise-induced hearing loss took place in the course of the employee’s employment?
_____________________________________
In Knoetze v Rand Mutual Assurance (2022) 33 SALLR 4 (DGJ), it is submitted that the high court
followed the following correct approach:
- s65(1) of COIDA contemplates two kinds of diseases:
- a disease mentioned in the first column of Schedule 3 (a listed occupational disease) and
- a disease other than a disease contemplated as a listed disease (a so-called non-listed
disease)
- hearing impairment (being a listed occupational disease), in terms of s66 of COIDA, is presumed
to have arisen out of and in the course of employment unless the contrary is proven (which, in
casu, could not be proven by Rand Mutual Assurance, licensed for assessing and making
payment of claims for compensation)
