A High Court judge yesterday referred to rising public disquiet about the number of Army deafness claims and noted that public statements had been made criticising the number of claims, lawyers for pursuing them and the courts for awarding damages.
Mr Justice Quirke said there were certain misunderstandings about why the courts were awarding damages in such cases and he wanted to make it clear why, in the case before him, he was awarding damages of £41,500.
The judge made the comments when giving judgment in a claim for noise-induced hearing loss and tinnitus taken by a former soldier, Mr William Sheehan (61), of Creagh Avenue, Kileely, Limerick, who served in the Army in 1952 for a year and rejoined it in 1965 for three years.
Mr Sheehan claimed he was exposed to excessive noise and that exposure was due to the negligence of the defendants.
Mr Justice Quirke said the State admitted that Mr Sheehan had severe hearing loss, caused directly as a result of negligence and breach of duty by the defendants; that there was no question of Mr Sheehan's bona fides' and that the statute of limitations did not apply.
The judge said those concessions were made after Mr Sheehan had given evidence. Counsel for the State had acted in a most competent manner, he said, and the judge was only required to assess damages to which Mr Sheehan was entitled, as a matter of law and a matter of fact, with reference to his severe hearing loss and tinnitus.
The only issue outstanding, he added, was a potential contributory factor arising out of a head injury sustained by Mr Sheehan in 1968, about which the State had been unaware, at that point, what its own evidence would be.
The judge said that in his experience of such cases, the one before him was "more the rule than the exception".
He said he wanted to put on record why he intended to award damages to Mr Sheehan. There were misunderstandings about why the courts awarded damages and he wanted to make clear why he was doing so. It was regrettable that he had to do so.
Mr Justice Quirke described Mr Sheehan as a man of immense charm who had sustained permanent and irreversible hearing loss. He had endured this for some 30 years and would do so for the rest of his life.
A medical expert called by the State, Dr Alexander Blaney, a consultant ENT surgeon, had found a 40 per cent hearing loss using the American Medical Association standards.
Against the UK "Blue Book" standard, the loss was 66 per cent. Dr Blaney had described Mr Sheehan's hearing loss as moderate to severe.
The judge said it was clear from the evidence that the 1968 traffic accident, in which Mr Sheehan was injured, was unlikely to have contributed to his hearing deficit and he had not been exposed to any other form of excessive noise.
He said the State had resources to investigate hearing claims and had contested the present claim on the basis that all the issues were to be fully contested up to when the trial started.
The judge said he had no difficulty accepting Mr Sheehan's evidence without qualification. He was courageously dealing with his disability and was to be much admired.
Nevertheless, he was suffering a significant amount of discomfort, distress and social embarrassment which he was striving to deal with through his irrepressible good humour.
It was manifestly obvious that Mr Sheehan had difficulties with normal conversation and with sleeplessness because of his tinnitus.
He awarded Mr Sheehan damages of £41,000. This includes £25,000 general damages, £15,000 for future costs and £1,500 to buy high-frequency hearing aids.