Citation Nr: 18141469 Decision Date: 10/10/18 Archive Date: 10/10/18 DOCKET NO. 16-12 812 DATE: October 10, 2018 ORDER Service connection for a prostate disorder is denied. Service connection for a skin disorder is denied. Service connection for a lung disorder is denied. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Service connection for tinnitus is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from December 1972 to April 1973, with additional Reserve service. 2. The Veteran has not been diagnosed with prostate, skin, or lung disorders during the pendency of this appeal. 3. Bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were not shown in service and are not causally or etiologically related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A prostate disorder has not been shown. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 2. A skin disorder has not been shown. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 3. A lung disorder has not been shown. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 4. Bilateral hearing loss was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). 5. Tinnitus was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may also be granted on a presumptive basis for diseases listed in § 3.309 under the following circumstances: (1) where a chronic disease or injury is shown in service and subsequent manifestations of the same disease or injury are shown at a later date unless clearly attributable to an intercurrent cause; or (2) where there is continuity of symptomatology since service; or (3) by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. Of note, the Veteran is not currently service-connected for any disorders; therefore, consideration of a secondary theory of entitlement is not applicable to these appeals. Prostate, Skin, and Lung Disorders Turning first to the prostate, skin, and lung appeals, the evidence does not establish that the Veteran was diagnosed with, or treated for, these disorders at any time during the pendency of this appeal. In this respect, he has not submitted any medical records spanning the period on appeal or otherwise identified treatment records to be obtained. Thus, the medical evidence does not reflect current diagnoses. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements that he has been diagnosed with the disorders on appeal. He is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). However, he is not competent to offer a medical opinion as to the presence of the disorders due to the medical complexity of the matters involved. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456, 462. Such competent evidence has been provided by the medical records obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to his statements. As the evidence does not reflect that the Veteran has been diagnosed with prostate, skin, or lung disorders during the pendency of this appeal, further analysis into the in-service event or nexus elements is not needed. Thus, the preponderance of evidence weighs against the claims and the appeals are denied. Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Turning to the audiological appeals, there is competent evidence of the claimed disorders. In this regard, hearing loss is considered a disability for VA purposes when the threshold level in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz (Hz) is 40 decibels or greater; when the thresholds for at least three of these frequencies 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 Veteran most recently underwent VA examination in September 2014, during which audiological testing yielded the following results: Hertz 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 Right Ear 40 55 55 65 60 Left Ear 40 50 55 60 55 He had speech recognition scores of 86 percent in the right ear and 80 percent in the left ear. These levels of hearing impairment satisfy the criteria of a hearing loss disability for VA purposes. Further, tinnitus was diagnosed by the September 2014 examiner based on the Veteran’s statements regarding his symptomatology. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002) (noting that a layperson is capable of observing tinnitus). Accordingly, the first element of service connection has been met for both appeals. Next, the evidence supports a finding of in-service acoustic trauma. Service records denote the Veteran’s in-service specialty as a carpentry specialist. During the September 2014 examination, he reported as to the nature of this exposure, which included noise from small weapons during basic training, aircrafts, and generators. There is no evidence which tends to contradict this testimony, and the circumstances reported are consistent with the nature of his service. As such, the second element of service connection has been met for both appeals. However, the evidence does not support the finding of a nexus between the Veteran’s service and audiological disorders. Medical records are silent as to this point, and no favorable opinion is of record other than that offered by the Veteran. However, he lacks the requisite medical training and expertise to competently assess the etiology of his audiological disorders. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A September 2014 VA examiner determined that he could not assess the etiology of the Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus. In doing so, the examiner indicated that such an opinion would require resorting to mere speculation, as the only hearing test in the claims file was taken during an entrance examination in September 1972. Without additional hearing test data obtained during active duty, the examiner reflected that it was impossible to determine whether military noise affected the Veteran’s hearing. Similarly, the examiner concluded that there was not enough hearing test data in the claims file to determine the etiology of tinnitus. While unable to render an etiology opinion, the examiner clearly identified why an opinion could not reasonably be determined from the available medical evidence. Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382 (2011). As those circumstances have not changed, additional development is unlikely to secure a more definitive opinion. The Board has also considered the application of presumptive service connection to these appeals. However, the Veteran has not reported that his hearing loss started during service or has continued since that time, or was noted to a compensable degree within one year of his separation. Moreover, he identified the onset of his tinnitus as 15 years prior during the September 2014 examination, dating the onset to years after discharge. As such, the evidence does not establish that the Veteran’s hearing loss or tinnitus onset during the applicable timeframe, such that presumptive service connection does not apply to these appeals. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims such that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not applicable. The appeals are denied. Of final note, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Kovarovic, Associate Counsel