29 May 2026

Can you claim for military hearing loss if you wore hearing protection?

TL;DR

Wearing hearing protection during service does not prevent a military hearing loss claim. The MoD's duty was not met by issuing any protection: the hearing protection provided had to be suitable for the specific noise levels involved.
The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 require protection to reduce exposure to below 137 dB peak and 80 dB sustained. Standard foam earplugs cannot achieve that in an artillery, demolitions, or fast-jet environment.
Being told not to wear protection during live firing, receiving protection that loosened and lost its seal, or working in environments where protection was not issued at all are each independent grounds for a claim.
Veterans issued with 3M Combat Arms Earplugs Version 2 (CAEv2) between 2003 and 2023 may have a separate product liability claim against 3M, in addition to any MoD negligence claim.

"I was wearing ear defenders at the time" is the most common reason veterans give for assuming they cannot claim for military hearing loss. In most cases that assumption is wrong.

The question in a military hearing loss claim is not whether you were wearing protection. It is whether the hearing protection you were issued was adequate for the noise levels involved, and whether its use was properly managed. Where the answer to either question is no, a claim may still succeed.

Does wearing hearing protection prevent a military claim?

No. Wearing hearing protection during service does not prevent a military hearing loss claim. The MoD's legal duty was not satisfied by handing out any form of protection: it was required to provide protection specifically suited to the noise environment and to ensure that protection was worn correctly and consistently.

The legal question is whether the protection provided could reduce exposure to safe levels, whether personnel received adequate training in fitting it, and whether supervisors enforced its use across all noise exposures. A veteran who wore foam earplugs throughout service in a Royal Artillery gun line is not prevented from claiming if those earplugs could not attenuate artillery blast to within safe limits. The eligibility criteria on this site allow you to check your position at no cost and without obligation.

What the MoD's hearing protection duty actually requires

The Crown Proceedings Act (Armed Forces) 1987 established a common law duty of care for the MoD in respect of service injuries sustained on or after 15 May 1987. The noise at work regulations (Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005) imposed additional statutory obligations from 6 April 2006.

Under those regulations, the MoD was required to carry out noise risk assessments covering each work environment, reduce noise levels at source where reasonably practicable, and provide hearing protection specifically suited to the residual levels where noise could not be adequately controlled. As Amplivox explains in its guidance on the regulations, the selection obligation requires the employer to match the protection to the actual noise exposure, not simply to provide something. The MoD was also required to train personnel in the correct use and fitting of protection and to enforce consistent wearing.

In Durrheim v MoD [2014] EWHC 1960 QB, the court confirmed that the MoD's duty extends to soldiers in a combat zone, provided they are away from direct contact with the enemy at the time of the noise exposure. The doctrine of combat immunity is construed strictly: it does not provide blanket cover for training, range work, or garrison duties.

What counts as inadequate hearing protection under the regulations?

Hearing protection is inadequate when it cannot reduce noise exposure to below the limits set by the noise at work regulations: sustained levels below 80 dB and peak sound pressure below 137 dB.

Standard foam earplugs provide attenuation of approximately 20 to 30 dB under ideal laboratory fitting conditions. In field conditions, with physical activity, communication demands, and repeated removal to hear orders, effective attenuation is considerably less. Artillery systems such as the AS90 and L118 generate peak levels of 150 to 185 dB at gunner positions. Even at the manufacturer's rated attenuation, foam earplugs cannot bring that exposure within the 137 dB peak limit. Issuing those earplugs to artillery crews and treating the protection obligation as discharged does not meet the regulatory standard.

Inadequacy also covers protection of the wrong type for the environment: single-ended conventional earplugs in a communication-intensive setting where personnel remove them repeatedly to hear orders; protectors selected for cost rather than their suitability to the specific frequency profile of the weapons in use; and devices with a high noise reduction rating on paper but documented poor performance in field conditions. For answers to common questions about protection and eligibility, the military FAQ page covers the most frequently asked scenarios.

What if you were told not to wear protection during exercises?

That instruction is itself a potential breach of the MoD's duty. The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 require hearing protection to be worn in all environments where noise exceeds the action values: no operational convenience exemption exists in the regulations.

An AWH case study records a veteran awarded £40,000 where evidence showed inconsistent access to earplugs during the 1980s and 1990s, and that wearing protection was not closely monitored or enforced during live firing exercises. The claim succeeded not because protection was never issued, but because the MoD failed to ensure its consistent and proper use across all relevant noise exposures.

Veterans who were told to remove protection to hear radio communications, whose protection was not available at all firing positions, or who served in units where wearing ear defenders was culturally discouraged or unenforced each have a factual basis for arguing the MoD's duty was not met. Per Alma Law, failing to supply adequate PPE, failing to enforce its use, and failing to provide sufficient training in correct fitting are the three most commonly documented breach categories in successful NIHL claims.

The 3M Combat Arms Earplugs: a separate route

Veterans who were issued 3M Combat Arms Earplugs Version 2 (CAEv2) may have a separate product liability claim against 3M, in addition to any MoD civil negligence claim.

The Veterans Welfare Group reports that approximately 400,000 sets of CAEv2 earplugs were supplied to the UK Ministry of Defence between 2003 and 2023. UK and US claims allege that the earplugs had a design flaw: the plug loosened imperceptibly in the ear canal during use, breaking the acoustic seal without the wearer realising. According to Oakwood Solicitors, personnel who believed they were protected received substantially less attenuation than the product specification indicated. 3M agreed to pay over $6 billion to settle similar claims from US service members.

A UK group action is under way; early cases are expected in court in 2026. This is a product liability claim against the manufacturer and runs alongside, not instead of, a civil negligence claim against the MoD. Veterans who wore CAEv2 during service may have grounds for both routes and should raise this with a specialist at the initial assessment stage.

How do you prove the hearing protection was inadequate?

The evidential case combines service records, acoustic data, and expert opinion.

Service records establish the veteran's role and the weapons systems and noise environments involved. MoD noise surveys for specific platforms document exposure levels at relevant positions. The protection's published attenuation rating is then assessed against those levels to determine whether it could reduce exposure to within the regulatory limits. An independent audiologist quantifies the hearing damage using the rM-NIHL methodology established in Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2026]. According to GA Solicitors, noise exposure records and protection history are central to establishing the breach element. Witness statements from colleagues in the same unit can corroborate how protection was used in practice, whether wearing was enforced, and whether complaints about inadequate equipment were raised at the time.

The claims process guide on this site explains how service records and medical evidence are gathered from the initial instruction through to settlement.

Starting your claim

If you have hearing loss or tinnitus from service and wore some form of hearing protection, that does not close off a claim. A free eligibility assessment examines whether the protection you were issued was suitable for your noise environment, whether its use was properly managed, and whether your claim is in time.

You pay nothing upfront and nothing if your claim is unsuccessful. The Matrix Agreement scheme deadline of 31 July 2026 means that acting now preserves the option of registering within the scheme and benefiting from the MoD's time-limit waiver. Begin with a free assessment online or by telephone.

This page provides general information about military hearing loss claims where hearing protection was issued during service. It is not legal advice. Whether the protection provided in a specific case was adequate depends on individual service records, noise exposure data, and expert evidence. Speak to a solicitor regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.