disease within the meaning of the policies; (2) whether the Paragraph 6 limitation of liability provision correctly denies coverage for claims from employees who did not cease work because of their occupational disease; and (3) whether N & Ws negligence causing noise-induced hearing loss is a single “occurrence” out of which the employees’ claims arose within the meaning of the policies. II. We first turn to the issue of whether noise-induced hearing loss is an “occupational disease,” as the insurance companies contend. The district court declared that noise-induced hearing loss is an “occupational disease”. We agree with the district court. We decided that very point in a Jones Act case under FELA law in Barger v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 616 F.2d 730, 732 n. 1 (4th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 834, 101 S.Ct. 105, 66
holding that the employees thirdparty tort claim stemming from the employees occupational disease does not accrue and the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the occupational disease begins to manifest itself recognizing hearing loss from onthejob noise as an occupational disease holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand recognizing loss of consortium claims holding without remanding for an evidentiary hearing that an infectious disease doctor does not specialize in the same or similar specialty as an ophthalmologist