A New York appellate court has upheld a decision regarding a workers' compensation claim filed by Krzysztof Kowalski, who alleged that he suffered hearing loss due to exposure to loud noise while working for A Quest Corporation. The ruling, issued on May 28, 2026, affects Kowalski and other workers who may seek compensation for occupational diseases related to hearing loss. The court's decision clarifies the responsibilities of employers in cases involving multiple employers and exposure to harmful noise.
The case, Matter of Kowalski v. A Quest Corp. (Docket CV-24-2073), centers on Kowalski's claim that he developed binaural hearing loss from his work as an asbestos handler. Kowalski worked for several employers over a period of more than 50 years, including A Quest Corporation, where he claimed his last exposure to harmful noise occurred in December 2015. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled in favor of Kowalski, establishing that he had sustained hearing loss due to his work. However, this decision was later rescinded by the Board, leading to Kowalski's appeal.
The dispute began when Kowalski filed an occupational disease claim in January 2017, stating that his hearing loss was caused by prolonged exposure to loud noise while working for Vestar, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined that Vestar was not the last employer of exposure and shifted the focus to other employers, including A Quest Corporation. After several hearings and testimonies, the Workers' Compensation Board ultimately found that Kowalski had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim against A Quest.
The court ruled that Kowalski failed to prove that his last injurious exposure to loud noise occurred while working for A Quest. The judges involved in the ruling included Garry, P.J., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Powers, and Corcoran, JJ. The court stated, "Substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that claimant failed to meet his burden to show that he sustained distinct injurious exposure to loud noise while working for Quest." This ruling affirms the Board's conclusion that Kowalski's exposure to noise while working for A Quest did not meet the criteria for compensation.
The court's decision has significant implications for workers' compensation claims related to hearing loss. It underscores the necessity for claimants to provide credible evidence linking their hearing loss to specific employers and the conditions of their employment. The ruling highlights the burden on claimants to establish a clear causal relationship between their work environment and their health issues.
Going forward, this ruling may influence how similar cases are evaluated, particularly in determining the last employer responsible for a worker's exposure to harmful noise. The decision reinforces the Workers' Compensation Board's authority in assessing witness credibility and the evidence presented in such claims. It may also serve as a precedent for future cases involving occupational diseases, especially those related to hearing loss.
As for Kowalski, the court's ruling means that he cannot pursue compensation from A Quest Corporation for his hearing loss claim. However, the Board retains continuing jurisdiction over the matter, allowing Kowalski to present additional evidence if he believes he has further proof regarding his exposure to harmful noise and where that exposure occurred. This aspect of the ruling ensures that workers have an avenue to seek justice even after an initial claim is denied.