Citation Nr: 18149245 Decision Date: 11/09/18 Archive Date: 11/08/18 DOCKET NO. 16-17 564 DATE: November 9, 2018 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. Service connection for residuals of a welding burn to the eyes is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is due to a disease or injury in service. 2. The Veteran’s tinnitus is related to his service. 3. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s current eye disability is due to a disease or injury in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 3. The criteria for service connection for residuals of a welding burn to the eyes are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from March 1976 to March 1979. 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 service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 1. Bilateral hearing loss The Veteran contends that his current hearing loss is related to his service, specifically due to noise from cannons and machine guns, as well as loud engine noise, when his tank was on the firing range. The question for 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 the Veteran was most likely exposed to acoustic trauma in service as he has described, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss began during service or is otherwise related to, or aggravated by, an in-service injury, event, or disease. 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). In December 2013, a VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was caused or aggravated by his service. The examiner explained that while right ear hearing loss was shown on entry into service, because there was no evidence of a significant threshold shift on service separation examination, there was no indication that the pre-existing hearing loss was aggravated by the Veteran’s service. With regard to the left ear, the examiner found no indication of hearing loss on service entrance or separation, noting again that there was no significant threshold shift shown between these two examinations. 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. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). While the Veteran is competent to report having experienced symptoms of hearing loss since service, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case or determine that these symptoms were manifestations of hearing loss. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of interpretation of clinical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this case, the December 2013 VA examiner reviewed the service treatment records, noting that two tests were accomplished on service entry confirming right ear hearing loss at that time. The examiner reviewed the service separation examination and explained that there was no significant threshold shift that would demonstrate hearing loss that was caused or aggravated by service. Based upon clinical knowledge and expertise, the examiner determined that the right ear pre-existing hearing loss was not aggravated by service, and there was no indication of left ear hearing loss that began in service. The Board finds this opinion to be consistent with the record. While the Veteran has reported exposure to loud noise in service and a feeling of hearing loss, the Board places greater probative weight on the examiner’s opinion that was based upon a review of the Veteran’s medical history and clinical knowledge and expertise. Accordingly, based upon the competent, probative evidence of record, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss must be denied. 2. Tinnitus The Veteran contends that he suffers from tinnitus that was caused or aggravated by his service. The Board notes that the December 2013 VA examiner provided an opinion that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s tinnitus was related to his service. However, the Board finds that the competent evidence is at least in equipoise as to this issue. While the examiner stated that it was ‘likely’ that the Veteran’s tinnitus was related to his pre-service right ear hearing loss, the examiner did not provide an opinion as to whether such pre-service tinnitus was aggravated by service. Moreover, the examiner did not address the Veteran’s reported feeling of tinnitus in his left ear and whether this feeling of tinnitus was caused by service. When considering the subjective nature of tinnitus and the Veteran’s competent report of experiencing tinnitus as a result of his service, as well as the limitations of the 2013 VA opinion, the Board finds that the evidence as to this issue reaches at least the benefit of the doubt standard. Therefore, the claim for service connection for tinnitus is granted. 3. Residuals of welding burn to the eyes The Veteran contends that his current blurry vision and loss of vision was caused by welding burns that occurred in service in 1977 or 1978. After a review of the record, the Board concludes that, while the Veteran does currently suffer from a refractive error of the eyes and bilateral dry eye, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s eye disabilities began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). To that extent, the Veteran contends that he was treated for welding burns to the eyes in Kirchgones, Georgia, in 1977 or 1978. The service treatment records reflect that in June 1977, the Veteran was treated at the Kirchgones, Georgia, facility for headaches, drowsiness, redness of the eyes, and swelling of the lips. He was given Aspirin and told to flush the eyes, and to return to the clinic in the morning. There is no record of a follow-up visit. The January 1979 separation examination shows normal vision. Thus, despite the Veteran’s report that he suffered burns to his eyes that resulted in vision loss treated in service, the service treatment records contradict these assertions. Moreover, in March 2015, a VA examiner reviewed the file and conducted a physical examination of the Veteran, finding that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s current dry eye was related to welding burns in service. The examiner explained that dry eye was due to a gland dysfunction and was not known to be related to a welding burn or flash burns. When considering the examiner’s opinion as well as the record, showing no indication of a welding injury to the eye or injury to the eye during service, the Board finds that the competent and probative evidence weighs heavily against the Veteran’s claim. For purposes of entitlement to VA benefits, the law provides that refractive errors of the eyes are congenital and/or developmental defects, and are not considered diseases or injuries for VA compensation purposes. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (c), 4.9. Refractive errors include diagnoses of astigmatism, myopia, hyperopia, and presbyopia. However, service connection may be granted for disability which is shown to have resulted from a defect (such as refractive error) which was subject to a superimposed disease or injury during service. If the defect was aggravated such that a superimposed disease or injury occurred during service, service connection may be established for the resultant disability. (Continued on the next page)   Again, however, the evidence does not support a finding that the Veteran suffered an injury, to include a welding burn, to the eyes in service that could be considered an injury for the above purposes. The service treatment records do not corroborate this contention, and the VA examiner found no indication of a residual injury on examination. Additionally, the post-service treatment records do not document this residual injury when evaluating the Veteran’s refractive error or dry eye. Accordingly, based upon the above, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted for an eye disability, to include refractive error or dry eye. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Erdheim, Counsel