The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Hearing Loss Due to Sirens
Buffalo Firefighters Sue Siren Manufacturer over Hearing Loss
Over 100 firefighters join others in claim over damaged hearing
About 20 lawsuits filed in state court were moved to federal court in Buffalo a week ago. In the lawsuits, 193 individuals follow in the footsteps of employees of fire departments in at least five other states who have sued siren makers. The firefighters since 1999 have claimed hearing loss from repeated exposure to sirens in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Missouri, New Jersey, Maryland and New York. READ MORE
Is this going too far?
What are you doing to prevent hearing loss?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on
-
John,
I am claiming nothing other than the implied blanket statement that EVERYONE has had a mandatory hearing conservation program in place for decades is untrue when I know for a fact otherwise is true.
I never said one way or the other whether I believe in the validity of the lawsuit. What I said was people on here calling firefighters stupid and whiners without being an insider and understanding the basis for the lawsuit is ignorant and vindictive.
I DO wear hearing protection while engaged in my hobbies and mowing my lawn, cutting trees, and so on.
Lastly, I never called you out here, unless YOU called these firefighters whiners or stupid. You are making this personal with me. Let me ask you a question, ever take your SCBA off during overhaul? Did the air get monitored first, EVERY TIME? What did it get monitored for? CO? Anything else? How about hydrogen cyanide? So if in 20 years you get cancer who is responsible? You for taking the mask off too soon...right? Nonsense, you will file a claim under the cancer presumptive cause law and you know it. All these firefighters are doing is trying to protect themselves financially. I can't fault that and the courts will decide whether it is a valid complaint or not.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Don,
I'm not claiming that everyone had such hearing conservation programs in place, but I AM saying that, that should be the first place to look. If the dept had no such program in place, then I ask, how could hearing loss be attributed to the mfgrs issue and not a departmental??? That is the basis here, one can claim whatever the hell they want, but the issue lies in proof. I can attest there were depts, circa timeframe here, that have had hearing conservation programs in place, as well as other outside the fire service industries. Just because an individual dept may not have one, does that make the mfgr responsible for hearing loss?
As for cancer presumption etc, Don, let's be honest, hearing protection and conservation is not there. Even in WI for heart, lung and cancer, one has to have a ten yr service before being eligible. Although you do make a valid point in HCN and CO. I can attest that my department definately has such a program in place. In fact my shift crewmembers just gave the first CYANOKIT to a civilian this morning. Air monitoring has improved, but was in place since I started, so yes, in my case personally, I can say with a definitive "yes", that such monitoring is in place.
The satisfying aspect here in WI is that we do have heart, lung, cancer, and infectious disease presumptive, worked hard for by many, and very much so appreciatied. Hearing protection is another animal and more difficult to attribute presumptive laws to, especially in regards to personal hobbies, etc. Yeah, we don't know the details attributed to the hearing loss, but as the article asks for opinion, IMO, I see this as frivolous. I see it as frivolous because of the points I have made before from the first post since. Yes, I do not know all the circumstances and pending more info, my opinion may change. I'm speaking on behalf of what I know and experienced in the same time frame such suits attest. To me, I see a dept more at fault than a mfgr and that really is the bottom line.
-
-
Talk to the 2 firefighters in Wauwatosa that not only were denied those presumptive benefits by the city but also FIRED. They both have won their cases in court only to have the city appeal those decisions. So don't tell me that it is a guarantee you will receive it in a timely manner or at all if your city puts up the battle. The battle has been raging for almost 2 years there.
-
-
I'm familiar with the BS from Tosa in regards to the two involved. That has nothing to do with the fact that hearing conservation is not on the same page as presumptive laws. Once again the issue here is the FFs suing the mfgr for hearing loss, when IMO, the first place to be looking is the dept. Why should a mfgr be liable for something a dept should have implemented? If such programs were implemented, then the proof is showing that hearing protection was always worn. If it was always worn, then this furthers to prove that it was the mfgr at fault and nothing else. I see this as an uphill battle to prove, and there are no presumptive laws to help the case. I further see this as the FF equivalent of spilling hot coffee on yourself and claiming you didn't know the contents were hot because of no label.
-
-
And I see it as a smart lawyer probably that researched this and saw that siren manufacturers had no warning label discussing hearing protection being required and going after the deepest pockets.
Again, I am not an insider on this lawsuit. I have no more details than are online.
Um, YOU brought the presumptive cancer law into the discussion.
-
-
Don,
First, I agree, this suit is most likely about some lawyers going after the deepest pockets. I said that in my very first post and I reiterated it in a response to you later. After all, there is no other reason to be going after a siren mfgr, except for the deep pockets, yet realistically, if looking to place blame, a dept should be looked at too. No warning labels? Yeah, that may be their push, but this just goes to show that common sense is even more troubled that we have our own brothers making the same case as a warning label for hot coffee. Yet the fact remains that this becomes a difficult issue to prove, considering so many other factors that can contribute to hearing loss. Running power tools for rig checks, cutting the grass, etc, etc, all can factor in, let alone one's hobbies. Again I find the lawsuit frivolous.
As for cancer presumptive, better look back at who brought that topic up Don. Go back to your first post on this page (2). Do you remember typing this?
Lastly, I never called you out here, unless YOU called these firefighters whiners or stupid. You are making this personal with me. Let me ask you a question, ever take your SCBA off during overhaul? Did the air get monitored first, EVERY TIME? What did it get monitored for? CO? Anything else? How about hydrogen cyanide? So if in 20 years you get cancer who is responsible? You for taking the mask off too soon...right? Nonsense, you will file a claim under the cancer presumptive cause law and you know it. All these firefighters are doing is trying to protect themselves financially. I can't fault that and the courts will decide whether it is a valid complaint or not.
I never brought up cancer presumptive until you mentioned it.
-
-
I apologize for my slip up on the presumptive cancer comment.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
