Citation Nr: 18147698 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 16-57 076 DATE: November 6, 2018 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss did not manifest to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive period; continuity of symptomatology is not established; and the disability is not otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a)-(b), (d), 3.307, 3.309(a), 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1954 to June 1957, October 1961 to February 1963, and December 1971 to August 1978. The Veteran contends that his hearing loss is due to acoustic trauma in service from his work in the Mortar Unit for 3 years. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of hearing loss for VA purposes, see 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, and evidence suggests that the Veteran was exposed to acoustic trauma in service, as evidenced by service in the Mortar Unit from June 1954 to June 1957; the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s hearing loss is etiologically related to service. 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). Sensorineural hearing loss is a chronic disease that will be presumed related to service if it was noted as chronic in service; or, if it manifested to a compensable degree within one year following separation from service; or, if continuity of the same symptomatology has existed since service, with no intervening cause. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309(a); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (defining hearing loss for VA purposes). The Board concludes that while the Veteran has sensorineural hearing loss, it was not chronic in service or manifested to a compensable degree in service or within the one year presumptive period, and continuity of symptomatology has not been established. During all periods of active duty service, the Veteran’s hearing was within normal limits. The Veteran does not assert and the evidence does not indicate that the Veteran had a continuity of symptoms following service. The medical evidence of record does not reveal that the Veteran had a formal diagnosis of sensorineural hearing loss until the January 2016 VA audiological examination. This means that the Veteran was not diagnosed with hearing loss until almost 60 years after his service with the Mortar Unit concluded. Additionally, the Board is cognizant that the Veteran reported that following service in the Mortar Unit, that he requalified each year on the rifle range despite holding clerical positions. But nonetheless, even considering his additional periods of active duty outside of the Mortar Unit, he did not obtain a formal diagnosis of sensorineural hearing loss until almost 40 years after separating from service in 1978. See generally Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (a prolonged period without medical complaint can be considered, along with other factors concerning a claimant’s health and medical treatment during and after military service, as evidence of whether an injury or a disease was incurred in service which resulted in any chronic or persistent disability). Service connection for sensorineural hearing loss may still be granted on a direct basis; however, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a medical nexus exists between the Veteran’s hearing loss and military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). The Board notes that at various times throughout his service the Veteran was either administered whisper voice tests or audiometric test. Nonetheless, there was no complaint, symptom, treatment or diagnosis of any hearing disability in service. The January 2016 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss was not at least as likely as not related to service. Her rationale was that the Veteran’s service treatment records showed normal hearing bilaterally at his separation exam, which was almost 20 years after the reported noise exposure in the Mortar Unit from 1954-1957. The examiner fully considered the Veteran’s contentions of noise exposure in service and the lack of hearing protection. The examiner’s opinion is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data based on the evidentiary record. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). Considering the facts of this case, the Board finds that the VA examiner’s opinion adequately addresses the evidence of record and lay testimony. Here, there are audiograms from periods of service many years after the in-service noise exposure that the Veteran asserts led to the current hearing loss disability. The examiner’s opinion appropriately considers these audiograms dated 20 years after the noise exposure. The Board finds that the most probative evidence of record is the January 2016 VA examination, as it is the only medical opinion of record. Consequently, the Board adopts the opinion of the VA examiner, who ultimately found that the Veteran’s hearing loss was not related to military service. The Board places great weight on the fact that the exit audiogram demonstrated normal hearing bilaterally, and finds this evidence to weigh against the Veteran’s claim given a documented history of normal hearing throughout service as demonstrated by whisper voice tests and audiograms. Neither the Veteran nor his representative have presented or identified any contrary medical opinion or treatment that supports his claim. VA adjudicators are not free to ignore or disregard the medical conclusions of a VA physician, and are not permitted to substitute their own judgment on a medical matter. Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991); Willis v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 66 (1991). In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the Veteran’s lay contentions. In particular, the Board acknowledges the Veteran’s disagreement with the January 2016 VA examiner’s opinion that he had limited noise exposure in service. While the Veteran is competent to report acoustic trauma in service and the symptoms related to his hearing loss, he is not competent to provide an etiology opinion in this case. The Veteran has not been shown to possess the requisite training or credentials needed to render a competent opinion as to a medical nexus. The Veteran, as a layperson, is not competent to speak to such medically complex matters, such as the etiology of the claimed disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As such, his lay opinion that his claimed disorder was caused by active service does not constitute competent medical evidence and lacks probative value. The Board gives more probative weight to the opinion of the January 2016 VA examiner. The examiner is a trained healthcare professional, who has provided an adequate examination and a medical nexus opinion. Her examination report fully considered the Veteran’s contentions of acoustic trauma in service, and she based her opinions on a review of the claims file and administration of an audiological examination. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). In sum, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against this service connection claim, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Dellarco, Associate Counsel