An Army private who served for 40 years did not receive any appropriate ear protection until his last couple of years in the force, the High Court has been told.
Mr Justice Lavan is hearing an action by the soldier, who is now retired, against the Minister for Defence. It was stated that liability had been admitted in the case yesterday morning and the judge is assessing damages only.
The action by Mr James Greene is the first to come before the High Court since new legislation was brought in by the Minister relating to standards for assessing hearing loss and following the publication by two expert groups of reports on how hearing loss should be assessed.
One expert group, set up by the State, produced its findings in what is known as the "Green Book". The second publication, known as the "Blue Book", was drawn up by experts acting on behalf of solicitors acting for some plaintiffs. The reports differ in a number of areas.
The action which opened before the High Court yesterday is being regarded as a "test case" and is expected to have a knock-on effect on hundreds of other cases.
Mr Greene (59), married with a grown-up family, is from Castle maine Street, Athlone. He served in the Army from 1956 until his retirement in 1996. His first six years were spent in the FCA and he then transferred to the permanent forces.
Yesterday Mr Alan Mahon SC, for Mr Greene, said that his client had been frequently required to attend firing ranges to train in the use of weapons and fire them. He had been involved in the firing of mortars, rifles and other guns and in using grenades.
In the period from 1973 to 1978 he was a member of an Army shooting team and was required to attend weapons firing on a daily basis. Between 1978 and the end of 1996, when he left the Army, Mr Greene was on firing ranges up to 10 times a year. On occasions, he would have to fire more than 100 rounds of ammunition from a rifle. Twelve other soldiers close to him would also be firing up to 100 rounds.
Counsel said that Army regulations relating to ear protection were first introduced in the 1950s and were frequently updated. They were made more strict in the 1970s, 1980s and up to the present day. They provided that each soldier be given particular types of hearing protection, have them medically fitted and be obliged to wear them on ranges.
The State now acknowledged that Mr Greene should have been provided with ear protection, but he was not. Around 1984, he was provided with a pellet-type rubber ear insert, but this was not provided under medical supervision. The inserts were "useless and fell out".
Mr Greene would say that he did not receive any appropriate ear protection until his last couple of years in the Army.
Mr Mahon said that an audiogram test traced the ability of a patient to hear sounds at different frequencies. One started with a whisper at 125hz, but there was no record at that level. Experts agreed that all frequencies up to 3,000hz would be used in normal speech; frequencies from 4,000 to 6,000hz would be frequently used in normal speech.
In Mr Greene's tests the position was that between 2,000 and 4,000hz there was a noticeable dip, and between 4,000 and 6,000hz were was a significant dip, particularly in his right ear.
Mr Greene also had tinnitus, which was a noise or whistling sound in his ears. In his case, all the tests would lead experts to the view that he had noise-induced hearing loss.
Mr Greene's symptoms were that he could converse without difficulty when there was no background noise and when he was engaged in a one-to-one situation. Where there was background noise, he could not decipher what was being said, because the sound was muffled.
He had left the Army, was not working and had no intention of working. He was happy to live on his small pension.
Mr Mahon said that the Civil Liability (Assessment of Hearing Inquiry) Act, 1998, had been introduced last week. The definition of hearing loss meant any loss as a result of any injury or deterioration in hearing compared to what was normal hearing. The court had to decide what the normal hearing of a particular individual was.
The hearing continues today.