You can't value a hearing loss claim properly without solid medical evidence. It establishes that your hearing damage was caused by service noise, sets out its severity, and underpins every figure in the claim. Where the evidence is thin, the claim is undervalued — it's that simple.
What good evidence looks like
- A specialist audiological assessment, including pure-tone audiometry, by an appropriately qualified independent expert.
- A diagnosis of noise-induced hearing loss that distinguishes service-related damage from age-related change, applying recognised diagnostic criteria.
- Assessment of tinnitus and hyperacusis, which can affect sleep, concentration and quality of life and significantly increase value.
- A prognosis covering future deterioration and the need for hearing aids and support over your lifetime.
For years, military claims were often diagnosed using the CLB guidelines, which were developed for steady civilian factory noise. In the landmark Abbott & Others v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 941 (KB) — the Hugh James Military Deafness Litigation — the High Court rejected CLB for military claims and endorsed Professor Moore's newer rM-NIHL methodology, recognising that the impulsive noise of gunfire and explosions damages hearing differently. The practical effect is significant: some veterans assessed as having little or no noise damage under the old approach may be diagnosed differently today, and the older methods could understate genuine military hearing injury — and the claim with it.
Why this matters if you've already settled. If your earlier claim was diagnosed and valued on the older civilian methodology, the injury — and therefore the settlement — may have been understated. Importantly, negligence is judged by the standard accepted at the time, so use of an earlier approach is not automatically a mistake. The sensible step is simply to have your medical evidence reviewed against current thinking.
How weak evidence causes undersettlement
If the original solicitor never instructed an independent expert, relied on a brief or generic report, or failed to capture tinnitus and future deterioration, the injury will have been graded too low. A lower injury grade pulls down both the general-damages figure and the future care and equipment claim — compounding the loss.
Putting the evidence right
As part of reviewing an undersettled claim, we can instruct a fresh independent expert to assess your hearing as it should have been assessed first time. That re-evidenced valuation is what we compare against your original settlement to demonstrate the shortfall.
Medical evidence and valuation go hand in hand — see how claims should be valued for the full picture, then ask us to take a look at yours.