9th Cir.

TOTAL TERMINALS INTERNATIONAL, LLC; SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION, LTD v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; ROBERT TOWER

May 15, 2024 ·21-0319 ·Published ·BRESS · By Raj Patel

The Ninth Circuit held that a longshoreman with unilateral hearing loss and bilateral tinnitus is entitled to compensation under the statutory rate for one ear, not the higher rate for bilateral hearing loss. The court also ruled that the Benefits Review Board's remand order was final and appealable because only a ministerial act remained for the Administrative Law Judge to complete.

Robert Tower, a longshoreman, filed a claim for compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act after developing hearing loss in his left ear and bilateral tinnitus (ringing in both ears) due to occupational noise exposure. While his audiogram showed ratable hearing loss in only one ear, his medical expert converted this monaural loss to a binaural rating using American Medical Association guides and added a percentage for tinnitus. The Benefits Review Board (BRB) agreed with Tower, holding that the presence of bilateral tinnitus allowed the conversion of the monaural loss to a binaural rating, entitling him to the higher compensation rate for hearing loss in both ears. The employer, Total Terminals International, petitioned for review, arguing that the statute requires compensation based on actual hearing loss in one or two ears, not a converted rating, and that the BRB's remand order was not final.

The panel first addressed jurisdiction, concluding that the BRB's remand order was final and appealable. Although remand orders are generally not final, the court applied the 'ministerial act exception,' noting that the facts were undisputed and the ALJ's only remaining task was to mechanically calculate the award based on the Board's legal conclusion. On the merits, the court analyzed the Longshore Act's compensation schedule, which sets distinct rates for monaural (one ear) and binaural (both ears) hearing loss. The court rejected the Board's reasoning that tinnitus necessitates converting a monaural loss to a binaural one. The court emphasized that the Longshore Act compensates for 'loss of hearing,' whereas tinnitus is a subjective symptom distinct from measurable hearing loss. The court held that the AMA Guides' conversion formula cannot override the statutory text, which clearly distinguishes between one-ear and two-ear hearing loss. Consequently, a claimant with ratable hearing loss in only one ear must be compensated under the monaural rate, regardless of the presence of tinnitus. The court expressed no view on whether tinnitus itself might be compensable under the Act's catch-all provision for 'all other cases.'

The decision clarifies that longshoremen with unilateral hearing loss cannot access the higher bilateral compensation rate simply by claiming bilateral tinnitus. Employers will no longer be required to pay the binaural rate for monaural hearing loss cases involving tinnitus. The case is remanded to the Administrative Law Judge to enter an award based on the monaural rate. The ruling leaves open the question of whether tinnitus alone is compensable under the Act's catch-all provision for unscheduled injuries.