Citation Nr: 18147081 Decision Date: 11/02/18 Archive Date: 11/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-09 114 DATE: November 2, 2018 ORDER Service Connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence of record favors a finding that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss disability is related to in-service noise exposure. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.385 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1967 to October 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Los Angeles, California. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability Service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of 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. Circ. 2004). For the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 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. Hearing loss as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 need not be shown by the results of audiometric testing during a claimant’s period of active service in order for service connection for such disability to be granted. See Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992); see also Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). Thus, a claimant who seeks to establish service connection for hearing loss must show, as is required in any claim of service connection, that a current hearing loss disability is the result of an injury or disease in service, the determination of which depends on a review of the evidence of recording including that pertinent to service. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. 5107; 38 C.F.R. 3.102. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). The Veteran asserts that he has a bilateral hearing loss disability as a result of in-service exposure to hazardous noise aboard the USS Enterprise and while stationed at the Kingsville Naval Air Station. In particular, the Veteran contends he was exposed to in-service acoustic trauma while working as an Aviation Boatswain’s Mate, as his assignments required daily exposure to jet aircraft noise within flight deck operations. He reported an incident in 1968 while at the Kingsville Naval Air Station in which he was partially sucked into the air intake of a jet while completing preflight checks. The incident resulted in bleeding coming from his right ear and buzzing in the ear for a few days. A base doctor advised him his eardrum was intact and that it was a minor injury. He also recalled being told he had a 10% hearing loss at separation, although no audio test was conducted, and reports receiving a letter from the VA in the 1980’s indicating he might be eligible for disability due to his hearing loss. The Veteran’s service treatment records include no complaints of hearing loss; however, audiometric testing was not completed upon separation from service. The Veteran’s DD Form 214 and service personnel records (SPRs) confirm that the Veteran did serve as an Aviation Boatswain’s mate, and the Board finds no reason to call into question his assertions of working in and around loud noise. Indeed, the Department of Defense’s Duty MOS Noise Exposure Listing indicates an aviation boatswain’s mate involved a “high” probability of noise exposure during service. VA examination results taken in April 2015 indicate that the Veteran has a current bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Therefore, the remaining inquiry is whether the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss disability is related to his in-service noise exposure. Against the Veteran’s claim is the opinion of the April 2015 VA audiological examiner, who opined that current hearing loss is less likely than not related to military service. The examiner reasoned that in the 40+ years between separation and audiometric testing in 2015, there had been no medical diagnosis of, or treatment for the claimed condition which would support Veteran’s claim of hearing loss as a result of in-service noise exposure. The Board observes that the April 2015 VA examiner’s opinion is based entirely on lack of evidence, and does not reflect consideration of the Veteran’s lay statements concerning the onset of symptoms during service and continuity of symptoms following service. Without further medical analysis the Board accords the April opinion little probative weight. In favor of the Veteran’s claim is the opinion of his private physician, who in a July 2015 opinion letter, stated the Veteran had experienced ongoing exacerbating hearing loss over the duration of his treatment of approximately 10 years. In March 2015, per his physician’s request, the Veteran was referred to a hearing aid center, where testing revealing results of significant hearing loss particularly at higher frequency ranges with a recommendation for binaural amplification. The Veteran’s physician opined that given the Veteran’s military history of noise exposure and the presence of hearing loss at higher frequencies, the Veteran’s ongoing exacerbation of his hearing loss is attributable to his years of service while working with military aircrafts. The physician then cited to a jet engine noise study in support, which acknowledged that permanent loss of hearing occurs when the cochlear hair cells of the inner ear die, and that noise levels around 85 decibels begin to cause permanent loss of hair cells after continuous exposure for over eight hours. The greater the loss of cochlear cells, the greater the exacerbation of hearing loss. The report then indicated that the noise of the flight decks on carriers is 20 to 30 decibels higher than any technology available to protect the hearing of Sailors and Marines. The Veteran has provided competent and credible lay statements indicating that he has experienced gradually worsening hearing problems since service. In contrast to the April 2015 VA examiner’s negative nexus opinion, the Veteran’s private physician’s positive nexus opinion is supported by a clinical explanation, reference to research, and takes into consideration the Veteran’s competent reports of ongoing worsening hearing loss symptomatology. The Board affords the opinion great probative weight. (Continued on Next Page) After consideration of all the lay and medical evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence most probative favors a finding that the Veteran’s current hearing loss disability is related to his in-service noise exposure. The benefit sought on appeal is granted. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. DuPree, Associate Counsel