A police officer who claimed his progressive hearing loss was caused on the job may be entitled to workers compensation, the Nevada Court of Appeals held Thursday.

In City of Henderson v. Spangler, the court unanimously affirmed a district court’s decision to remand the case after finding that the hearing officer incorrectly interpreted state statutes by denying workers comp based on the police officer’s preexisting hearing condition.

Jared Spangler began working as a police officer for the City of Henderson, Arizona, in 2003. He began suffering from progressive hearing loss that he believed was caused, at least in part, by his job from sirens, radio earpieces, shouted commands and gunfire from required shooting range practice. In 2005, he filed a workers compensation claim stating that the loud noise exposure caused ringing in his ears and impaired his hearing, but a doctor opined that his issue was nonindustrial — possibly genetic — and the city denied his claim. He did not appeal.

In 2016, after experiencing a significant decrease in hearing, he sought medical treatment, and a doctor found that the work-related sounds had caused increased hearing loss. He filed a second comp claim alleging that the cumulative exposure to loud noises combined to worsen his hearing. Another doctor found that his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were not work-related, but that the work environment contributed to his increased hearing loss. His claim was denied and an appeals officer affirmed the denial. A district court reversed that decision and the city appealed.

The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, remanding it back to the appeals officer, but asking for review on different grounds. Although the appeals officer who denied the initial claim held that Mr. Spangler failed to meet his burden of proof, the court held that he incorrectly interpreted state statutes that “specifically provide for compensation when a condition that preexisted the job was aggravated, precipitated or accelerated by the contradiction of an occupational disease.”

The court found that Mr. Spangler would be entitled to workers comp if he could show that his current level of hearing loss resulted from some combination of the preexisting condition made worse by the job.

“Contrary to the appeals officer's conclusion, the statutes do not permit denial of compensation solely on the grounds that some of (Mr.) Spangler's current level of hearing loss preexisted his employment,” the appellate court said.

The court, therefore, remanded the case back to the appeals officer with instructions.