administrative regulations -- Rebuttable presumption as to employer liability.
(1) In all claims for occupational hearing loss caused by either a single incident of
trauma or by repetitive exposure to hazardous noise over an extended period of
employment, the extent of binaural hearing impairment shall be determined under
the "Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment."
(2) Income benefits payable for occupational hearing loss shall be as provided in KRS
342.730, except income benefits shall not be payable where the binaural hearing
impairment converted to impairment of the whole person results in impairment of
less than eight percent (8%). No impairment percentage for tinnitus shall be
considered in determining impairment to the whole person.
(3) The commissioner shall provide by administrative regulation for prompt referral of
hearing loss claims for evaluation, for all medical reimbursement, and for prompt
authorization of hearing enhancement devices.
(4) When audiograms and other testing reveal a pattern of hearing loss compatible with
that caused by hazardous noise exposure and the employee demonstrates repetitive
exposure to hazardous noise in the workplace, there shall be a rebuttable
presumption that the hearing impairment is an injury covered by this chapter, and
the employer with whom the employee was last injuriously exposed to hazardous
noise for a minimum duration of one (1) year of employment shall be exclusively
liable for benefits.
Effective: July 14, 2018
History: Amended 2018 Ky. Acts ch. 40, sec. 14, effective July 14, 2018. -- Amended
2010 Ky. Acts ch. 90, sec. 6, effective July 15, 2010. -- Created 1996 (1st Extra.
Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 1, sec. 38, effective December 12, 1996.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case:
Greg's Constr. v. Keeton, 385 S.W.3d 420 (Ky. 2012).
Greg's Constr. v. Keeton, 385 S.W.3d 420 (Ky. 2012).
· cites it 13× “0011(1) defines a com-pensable injury generally, the General Assembly enacted KRS 342.7305 in 1996 specifically to govern the compensability of occupational hearing loss due to hazardous noise exposure.”
AK Steel Corp. v. Johnston, 153 S.W.3d 837 (Ky. 2005).
· cites it 13× “OPINION OF THE COURT These appeals concern the construction of KRS 342.7305. Affirming decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board), which reversed in AK Steel Ctep.”
Manalapan Mining Co., Inc. v. Lunsford, 204 S.W.3d 601 (Ky. 2006).
· cites it 4× “Consistent with the mechanism by which repetitive exposure to hazardous noise destroys the membranes of the inner ear, KRS 342.7305(4) characterizes hearing loss caused by such exposure as being an "injury.”
Hale v. CDR Operations, Inc., 474 S.W.3d 129 (Ky. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Therefore, the ALJ’s determination Hale sustained a cumulative trauma injury which manifested on February 7, 2012, and the award of PTD benefit's must be vacated. On remarid, the ALJ must deteririine the date of *133 manifestation, of Hale’s alleged cumulative trauma injury.”
Tanks v. Roark, 104 S.W.3d 753 (Ky. 2003).
· cites it 3× “KRS 342.7305(2). Finally, it asserts that disability from trauma incurred after the filing date is properly the subject of a separate claim and that such a claim would presently be barred by limitations.”
Webster Cnty. Coal Corp. v. Lee, 125 S.W.3d 310 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 12× “730(l)(a) and KRS 342.7305. In its petition for review, Webster County Coal argues that the ALJ erred as a matter of law in applying KRS 342.”
Hill v. Sextet Mining Corp., 65 S.W.3d 503 (Ky. 2001).
“732 and hearing loss covered in KRS 342.7305 shall not be considered in determining whether the employee is totally disabled for the purposes of this section.”
Alcan Foil Prods. v. Huff, 2 S.W.3d 96 (Ky. 1999).
“The legislature also enacted KRS 342.7305 to govern claims for traumatic hearing loss.”
AK Steel Corp. v. Childers, 167 S.W.3d 672 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).
“As a result of this information, on January 28, 2002, Childers filed his Application for Resolution of Hearing Loss Claim with the Department of Workers’ Claims pursuant to KRS 342.7305. 5 Pursuant to KRS 342.315, Childers was ordered to undergo an independent hearing loss…”
McCoy Elkhorn Coal Co., Inc. v. Robbie Hatfield (Ky. 2019).
· cites it 21× “The issue we must resolve in this case is whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that this section of KRS 342.7305 violates the equal protection guarantees in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Kentucky…”
Enter. Mining Co. v. Herman Napier (Ky. 2019).
· cites it 21× “The issue we must resolve in this case is whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that this section of KRS 342.7305 violates the equal protection guarantees in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Kentucky…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.7305(1) — 3 cases
AK Steel Corp. v. Johnston, 153 S.W.3d 837 (Ky. 2005).
“OPINION OF THE COURT These appeals concern the construction of KRS 342.7305. Affirming decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board), which reversed in AK Steel Ctep.”
McCoy Elkhorn Coal Co., Inc. v. Robbie Hatfield (Ky. 2019).
“The issue we must resolve in this case is whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that this section of KRS 342.7305 violates the equal protection guarantees in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Kentucky…”
Enter. Mining Co. v. Herman Napier (Ky. 2019).
“The issue we must resolve in this case is whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that this section of KRS 342.7305 violates the equal protection guarantees in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Kentucky…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.7305(2) — 10 cases
Tanks v. Roark, 104 S.W.3d 753 (Ky. 2003).
“KRS 342.7305(2). Finally, it asserts that disability from trauma incurred after the filing date is properly the subject of a separate claim and that such a claim would presently be barred by limitations.”
AK Steel Corp. v. Johnston, 153 S.W.3d 837 (Ky. 2005).
“OPINION OF THE COURT These appeals concern the construction of KRS 342.7305. Affirming decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board), which reversed in AK Steel Ctep.”
Webster Cnty. Coal Corp. v. Lee, 125 S.W.3d 310 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).
“730(l)(a) and KRS 342.7305. In its petition for review, Webster County Coal argues that the ALJ erred as a matter of law in applying KRS 342.”
McCoy Elkhorn Coal Co., Inc. v. Robbie Hatfield (Ky. 2019).
“The issue we must resolve in this case is whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that this section of KRS 342.7305 violates the equal protection guarantees in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Kentucky…”
Enter. Mining Co. v. Herman Napier (Ky. 2019).
“The issue we must resolve in this case is whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that this section of KRS 342.7305 violates the equal protection guarantees in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Kentucky…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.7305(3) — 2 cases
Tanks v. Roark, 104 S.W.3d 753 (Ky. 2003).
“KRS 342.7305(2). Finally, it asserts that disability from trauma incurred after the filing date is properly the subject of a separate claim and that such a claim would presently be barred by limitations.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.7305(4) — 13 cases
Greg's Constr. v. Keeton, 385 S.W.3d 420 (Ky. 2012).
“0011(1) defines a com-pensable injury generally, the General Assembly enacted KRS 342.7305 in 1996 specifically to govern the compensability of occupational hearing loss due to hazardous noise exposure.”
Manalapan Mining Co., Inc. v. Lunsford, 204 S.W.3d 601 (Ky. 2006).
“Consistent with the mechanism by which repetitive exposure to hazardous noise destroys the membranes of the inner ear, KRS 342.7305(4) characterizes hearing loss caused by such exposure as being an "injury.”
Hale v. CDR Operations, Inc., 474 S.W.3d 129 (Ky. 2015).
“Therefore, the ALJ’s determination Hale sustained a cumulative trauma injury which manifested on February 7, 2012, and the award of PTD benefit's must be vacated. On remarid, the ALJ must deteririine the date of *133 manifestation, of Hale’s alleged cumulative trauma injury.”
AK Steel Corp. v. Johnston, 153 S.W.3d 837 (Ky. 2005).
“OPINION OF THE COURT These appeals concern the construction of KRS 342.7305. Affirming decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board), which reversed in AK Steel Ctep.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.