Citation Nr: 18145299 Decision Date: 10/26/18 Archive Date: 10/26/18 DOCKET NO. 17-01 065 DATE: October 26, 2018 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss began during service, manifested within a year of service, or was otherwise caused by military noise exposure. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from January 1962 to December 1965. The Veteran, testified at an August 2018 Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). The transcript is associated with the claims file. This matter is on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision. The Veteran testified that the VA examiner incorrectly reported that his hearing loss was first observed in 2015, instead of manifesting far earlier than reported. As discussed below, VA has satisfied its duties to assist, and additional development efforts would serve no useful purpose. See Soyini v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 540, 546 (1991). Thus, there is no prejudice to the Veteran in adjudicating this appeal. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (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 or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For the purposes of applying VA laws, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or when the speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Bilateral Hearing Loss The Veteran is seeking service connection for bilateral hearing loss which he believes is the result of military noise exposure. The Veteran testified that he was an aircraft mechanic and was not provided hearing protection. His military personnel records confirm that he served as an Airmen, Basic during service. While the Board concedes that the Veteran’s assignment in the military was a position with a high probability of hazardous noise exposure, service connection requires that it be shown that the Veteran’s hearing loss was in fact, caused by such noise exposure. The Board notes that during the pendency of appeal, the Veteran has been shown to experience bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. The question for the Board is therefore whether the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss disability either began during or was otherwise caused by his military noise exposure during service. As will be explained below, the Board concludes that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. The Veteran’s service treatment records show no diagnosis, complaints of, or treatment for, hearing loss related to his service. The Veteran testified before the Board that he did not have an enlistment or separation hearing or physical examination during service. However, the claims file contains audiological findings from the Veteran’s enlistment examination in January 1962, and a separation hearing examination in December 1965. The examinations revealed normal bilateral hearing upon entry and exit from service. The claims file also contains the Veteran’s completed and signed December 1965 separation report of his medical history survey on which he reported having several conditions including ear, nose and throat (ENT) trouble, tonsillectomy in his past, bronchitis, and mild hay fever. However, the medical officer explained that the Veteran’s ENT trouble referred to complaint and treatment for cerumen (wax in ear). Furthermore, the Veteran testified at the August 2018 Board hearing that his wife first noticed problems with his hearing approximately seven years after his separation from service and that he sought treatment ten years after separation. A VA examination was provided in July 2015. The VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss based on audiometric testing that showed with pure tone thresholds recorded in decibels: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 30 50 70 80 85 LEFT 35 55 75 85 90 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 90 percent in the right ear and of 86 percent in the left ear. The July 2015 VA examination confirms that the Veteran currently has bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. The examiner reviewed the claims file, interviewed and examined the Veteran and concluded that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s current hearing loss was the result of his military service, to include his military noise exposure therein. In support of this opinion, the examiner’s rationale was based on the evidence of record that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing was noted to be normal audiometrically at the time of separation in 1965 and there was no record of complaint or treatment for hearing loss contained in service treatment records. The Veteran argues that the examiner incorrectly reported that his hearing loss was first observed in 2015, approximately fifty years after his separation, instead of manifesting far earlier, however, he testified that he did not seek treatment until ten years after he separated from service. Thus, he Veteran did not dispute that that his hearing loss did not manifest for a number of years after separation from service. Moreover, a close reading of the examination report shows that the examiner simply stated that there was no evidence of hearing loss for a number of years, which is an accurate statement since the first audiometric testing does not appear for decades after the Veteran’s separated from service. The Board notes that in September 2018 and after the 2015 VA examination, he submitted a May 2007 private hearing examination and receipts of hearing aid purchases dating back to 2001. The Veteran’s also submitted a private April 2015 hearing examination that was of record and considered during the Veteran’s July 2015 VA examination. The 2007 and 2015 private examiners provided pure-tone threshold results. The results are consistent with the Veteran’s July 2015 VA examination conclusion that the Veteran has current hearing loss for VA purposes. The Board finds that the VA July 2015 VA examination is adequate for adjudication purposes. The examination was performed by a medical professional based on a review of claims file of record, a solicitation of history and symptomatology from the Veteran, and a physical examination of the Veteran. The examination reports are objective and accurately address the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss condition. The examiner’s opinion is supported by sufficient rationale and the weight of the evidence of record. While the Veteran has questioned when his bilateral hearing loss was reported as first diagnosed, the fact remains that the evidence of record shows that the Veteran had normal hearing testing upon entry and separation from service and he testified that he did not seek treatment until years after service. As such, the examiner’s rationale is fully supported by the evidence of record and it is found to be adequate for rating purposes. Moreover, it is worth noting that a medical opinion undercutting or questioning the examiner’s conclusions has not been provided. Based on all the objective evidence (audiograms) there is no evidence on which to conclude that the Veteran’s current hearing loss was caused by or a result of his military service. It is not disputed that the Veteran currently has hearing loss for VA purposes. It is also not disputed that the Veteran experienced military noise exposure during his active service. However, military noise exposure alone is not considered to be a disability, rather, when sensorineural hearing loss is first documented more than a year after service separation, it must be shown that the hearing loss was caused by the military noise exposure. The Veteran testified that his wife first noticed him having hearing loss about seven years after separation and that he sought treatment ten years after separation. The Veteran’s claims file shows that he had normal audiological examinations at his January 1962 entrance examination and at his December 1965 separation examination. The Board notes that the Veteran contends that he was never afforded a physical examination, to include any hearing examinations during service. However, the service treatment records show enlistment, separation and hearing examinations in service. As such, the Veteran’s statements are clearly contradicted and are not found to be credible. As such, no weight is given to his assertion that his hearing loss was due to military service. The Board finds the greatest probative value in the July 2015 VA examiner’s opinion. Notably, the Veteran has not submitted any evidence, beyond is own assertions, supporting his contention that his bilateral hearing loss was due to his military service to include loud noises therein. Consideration has been given to the Veteran’s evidence submitted and assertion that his bilateral hearing loss was due to his active service. The Board readily acknowledges that Veteran is competent to report difficulty hearing, however, he has not been shown to possess the requisite medical training, expertise, or credentials needed to render a diagnosis or a competent opinion as to medical causation. Nothing in the record demonstrates that he has received any special training or acquired any medical expertise in evaluating audiological disorders. See King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2012). Accordingly, this lay evidence does not constitute competent medical evidence and lacks probative value in the determination of the etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. The Board also notes that there is no medical evidence showing a diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss within a year from the Veteran’s separation from service. The Veteran has not identified or submitted evidence showing a diagnosis or signs of hearing loss within one year from separation. Therefore, service connection for bilateral hearing loss on a presumptive basis under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a) is not warranted. Accordingly, the criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met, and the Veteran’s claim is denied. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Franklin, Associate Counsel