Citation Nr: 18144937 Decision Date: 10/25/18 Archive Date: 10/25/18 DOCKET NO. 16-53 269 DATE: October 25, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was caused or aggravated by active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for establishing entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1113, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from April 1974 to 1982 and from May 1982 to October 1984. Review of the Veteran’s military personnel record shows a period of honorable service from April 1974 to May 1982. He also had a period of dishonorable service from May 1982 to October 1984. For VA purposes, any claims arising out of the Veteran’s period of service determined to be dishonorable and are barred from benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Duty to Assist and to Notify VA is required to notify a claimant of what information or evidence is necessary to substantiate the claim; what subset of the necessary information or evidence, if any, the claimant is to provide; and what subset of the necessary information or evidence, if any, the VA will attempt to obtain. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) (2017). Copies of compliant VCAA notices were located in the claim’s file. VA’s duty to assist includes providing a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination, especially where it is necessary to determine the current level of a disability. Peters v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 540, 542 (1994). In this case, neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board . . . to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to duty to assist argument). Thus, upon careful review of the file, the Board finds that all necessary development has been accomplished, and therefore appellate review may proceed without prejudice to the Veteran. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993). Service connection, generally Service connection may be granted for any current disability that is the result of a disease contracted or an injury sustained while on active duty service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131 (West 2015); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (a), 3.304 (2018). Entitlement to service connection benefits is established when the following elements are satisfied: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and, (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service (the medical ‘nexus’ requirement). See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a) (2018). In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disorder, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (West 2015); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2018); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss is causally related active service, to include as due to exposure to acoustic trauma therein. According to his DD-214, the Veteran’s official military occupation was listed a subsistence supply specialist and material supply specialist. The threshold inquiry before the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss, and evidence shows that he suffered from high frequency hearing loss at induction, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss is causally related to active service, to include as due to aggravation. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). Service treatment records show that the Veteran suffered from bilateral hearing loss at induction. A report of medical history, dated March 1974, noted high frequency bilateral hearing loss at 4000 Hertz (Hz). Nevertheless, the Veteran was deemed qualified for active service. In January 1975, a physical profile record, indicated that the Veteran suffered from high frequency sensorineural bilateral hearing loss. No assignment involving habitual or frequent exposure to loud noise or weapons (not to include firing for period of performance (POR) qualification) was permitted. On the authorized audiological evaluation in May 2015 pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 10 5 40 80 80 LEFT 10 5 75 75 80 Pure tone threshold averages were 51.25 dB for the right ear and 58.75 dB for the left ear. Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 86 percent in the right ear and of 76 in the left ear. Based upon the audiological evaluation, the examiner opined that the Veteran suffers from sensorineural hearing loss. Following a review of the records and clinical evaluation, the examiner opined that it is less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was caused by or otherwise related to active service. In support of the stated conclusion, the examiner acknowledged the Veteran’s report exposure to loud noise while working in a motor pool and at a weapon’s firing range. However, according to his DD-214, his official military occupation was a substance supply specialist and he served in that role for 8 years 9 months. Review of his background shows significant noise exposure both prior to and post active service. The Veteran reported hunting/shooting weapons from childhood until he joined the Army. He denied use of hearing protection. At enlistment, an audiological evaluation revealed significant high frequency bilateral hearing loss at 4000 Hz. That level of hearing loss was deemed consistent pre-service noise exposure without hearing protection. Post service, the Veteran worked as a heavy equipment mechanic for 10 years and later, as a welder for 5 years. He acknowledged use of hearing protection in post-service employment activities. A subsequent audiological examination was conducted in April 2017. Pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 15 60 85 85 LEFT 15 10 70 80 85 Pure tone threshold averages were 53 dB for the right ear and 52 dB for the left ear. Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 96 percent in the right ear and of 88 in the left ear. The audiological evaluation confirmed bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. No casual linkage was established between the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and active service. In making all determinations, the Board has fully considered all medical evidence and lay assertions of record. Generally, the Veteran is presumed competent to report on the onset of current symptoms, their impact on daily living and employment, and such reporting is deemed credible. However, as to the etiology of a particular claimed disability, the issue of causation of a medical condition is a medical determination outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In the instant case, there is no evidence that Veteran possesses the required training to diagnose bilateral hearing loss or opine as to its etiology. To the extent his statements may be competent, the Board ultimately assigns greater probative weight to the medical evidence of record, to include opinions rendered by trained medical professionals based on appropriate diagnostic testing and reasonably drawn conclusions with supportive rationale. Review of the record indicates that the Veteran suffered from high frequency bilateral hearing loss at induction. He acknowledged involvement in hunting and shooting dating back to childhood without the use of hearing protection. During service, the Veteran was placed on profile which prohibited his assignment to roles with habitual or frequent exposure to loud noise or weapons (not to include firing for POR qualification). At separation, no complaints of hearing loss were reported. An audiological evaluation was not obtained. Post-service, the record shows that the Veteran had loud-noise exposure in employment-related activities. He acknowledged use of hearing protection. On VA examination, the examiner indicated that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss. However, on review of the record, the examiner opined that it is less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) that the Veteran’s condition is casually related to acoustic trauma in service. In support of the stated conclusion, the examiner noted that the Veteran suffered from high frequency bilateral hearing loss at induction. Shortly thereafter, he was placed on profile which prohibited hazardous noise exposure. According to his DD-214, his military occupation was a supply clerk and therefore, hazardous noise exposure cannot be presumed. The record does not reveal that the Veteran’s hearing loss was worsened by active service. While the Board recognizes the Veteran’s subjective belief that his bilateral hearing loss was causally related to active service, the evidence of record does not support his contention. As previously indicated, the record shows that the Veteran suffered from high frequency bilateral hearing loss at induction. There is no evidence that performance of his official military duties resulted in any significant noise exposure. No hearing loss was reported at separation. Post-service, employment related loud noise exposure has been confirmed. The Veteran’s assertion that he used hearing protection is recognized. On review of the record, the Board finds the opinion of the VA examiner most probative as it reflects a competent review of the evidence and provided a logically reasonable opinion based upon its review. Accordingly, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) regarding reasonable doubt are not applicable. The Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss must be denied. M. H. HAWLEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. Whitaker, Associate Counsel