Citation Nr: 0811095 Decision Date: 04/03/08 Archive Date: 04/14/08 DOCKET NO. 04-13 784 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Michael Martin, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from February 1983 to September 1987, and from January 1988 to June 1989. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals on appeal from a decision of March 2002 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) St. Louis, Missouri, Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded the hearing loss claim for additional development in January 2007. The case is now ready for appellate review. FINDING OF FACT The veteran does not currently have hearing loss with the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz being 40 decibels or greater; or auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz being 26 decibels or greater; or speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test being less than 94 percent. CONCLUSION OF LAW A bilateral hearing loss disability was not incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Initially, the Board finds that the content requirements of a duty to assist notice have been fully satisfied. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b). Letters from the RO dated in August 2001, January 2004 and February 2007 provided the veteran with an explanation of the type of evidence necessary to substantiate his claim, as well as an explanation of what evidence was to be provided by him and what evidence the VA would attempt to obtain on his behalf. The initial duty to assist letter was provided prior to the adjudication of the claim. In addition, the letters adequately informed the veteran that he should submit any additional evidence that he had in his possession. Notice in March 2006 also included information regarding the evidence to establish a disability rating and an effective date for the award of benefits if service connection is awarded. The VA has no outstanding duty to inform the appellant that any additional information or evidence is needed. The Board concludes, therefore, that the appeal may be adjudicated without a remand for further notification. The Board also finds that all relevant facts have been properly developed, and that all evidence necessary for equitable resolution of the issue has been obtained. The veteran's service medical records and available post service treatment records have been obtained. He has declined a hearing. He has been afforded VA examinations. The Board does not have notice of any additional relevant evidence which is available but has not been obtained. For the foregoing reasons, the Board concludes that all reasonable efforts were made by the VA to obtain evidence necessary to substantiate the veteran's claim. Therefore, no further assistance to the veteran with the development of evidence is required. Service connection may be granted for disability due to disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131. If a chronic disorder such as organic disease of the nervous system or a chronic cardiovascular disease is manifest to a compensable degree within one year after separation from service, the disorder may be presumed to have been incurred in service. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. Service connection may only be granted if claimed hearing loss is of sufficient severity to be considered a disability for VA purposes. Specifically, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Board finds that there is no objective medical evidence to show that the veteran currently has a hearing loss disability. The report of an audiology examination conducted by the VA in September 2001 reflects that the examiner concluded that the veteran's test performance did not match his everyday ability, and that there was a discrepancy indicating that his responses reflected a lack of cooperation with test procedures. It was further stated that the veteran's responses were not considered to be reliable. More recently, on the authorized VA audiological evaluation in April 2007, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 25 20 25 25 25 LEFT 20 20 25 15 20 The average for the right ear was 24, and the average for the left ear was 20. Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 94 percent in the right ear and of 96 percent in the left ear. The diagnosis was hearing acuity within normal limits in both ears, speech recognition was excellent in both ears. In an addendum, the VA examiner stated that the veteran's hearing was normal on separation from service, that the veteran does not have any ratable hearing loss, and that in his opinion, any hearing loss was not related to military service. The Board notes that these findings are not severe enough to show the presence of a hearing loss disability under VA standards set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The veteran does not currently have hearing loss with the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz being 40 decibels or greater; or auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz being 26 decibels or greater; or speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test being less than 94 percent. Although the veteran has given his own opinion that he has a hearing loss disability, the Court has held that lay persons, such as the veteran, are not qualified to offer an opinion that requires medical knowledge, such as a diagnosis or an opinion as to the cause of a disability. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492, 494-5 (1992). In the present case, the objective testing has greater probative value than the veteran's subjective opinion regarding the severity of the hearing loss. The Court held in Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992) that a service-connection claim must be accompanied by evidence which establishes that the claimant currently has the claimed disability. Accordingly, the Board concludes that a hearing loss disability was not incurred in or aggravated by service. ORDER Service connection for hearing loss is denied. ____________________________________________ MARJORIE A. AUER Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs