Citation Nr: 18150752 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 15-10 257A DATE: November 15, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss of the left ear is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that the currently diagnosed left ear hearing loss was incurred during the Veteran’s service CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hearing loss of the left ear have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service in the United States Army from December 1968 to April 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Lincoln, Nebraska. 1. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss of the left ear The Veteran contends that his left ear hearing loss is due to his military service. Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. If a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then generally a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required for service connection if the disability is one that is listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In addition, service connection may also be granted on the basis of a post-service initial diagnosis of a disease, where the physician relates the current condition to the period of service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Other specifically enumerated disorders, including sensor neural hearing loss, will be presumed to have been incurred in service if they manifested to a compensable degree within the first year following separation from active duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. In order to establish service connection for the claimed disability, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). Service connection may also be granted where disability is proximately due to or the result of already service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. The requirement of a current disability is “satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim.” See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Service connection for impaired hearing is subject to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, which provides that 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. Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under the laws administered by VA. VA shall consider all information and medical and lay evidence of record. Where there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). In evaluating the evidence, the Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F. 3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Indeed, the Court has declared that in adjudicating a claim, the Board has the responsibility to do so. Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482, 488-89 (2000). In doing so, the Board is free to favor one medical opinion over another, provided it offers an adequate basis for doing so. Evans v. West, 12 Vet. App. 22, 30 (1998). As to a current diagnosis, the Board notes that the Veteran has been diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss. As to the in-service incurrence, the Board notes that the Veteran served as a military policeman and was exposed to small-arms fire while on active duty. In addition, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran has been service connected for his right ear hearing loss and tinnitus. Thus, the Board concedes that the Veteran has been exposed to acoustic trauma while on active duty. Turning to the medical evidence at hand, the Board notes that the Veteran attended a VA examination for this issue in February 2015. The Veteran reported a history of noise exposure in the military from pistols, rifles, and shotguns. The Veteran also reported no significant noise exposure as a civilian. In addition, the Veteran denied any previous ear pathology, associated medical conditions, or family history of hearing loss. Following the examination, the examiner found that the Veteran had hearing loss in his left ear for VA purposes; however, the examiner found the Veteran’s left ear hearing loss was less likely than not that due to military noise exposure. The examiner reached that conclusion because the Veteran’s induction and discharge examinations from service showed normal hearing bilaterally and there was no significant shift in threshold from induction to discharge. In addition, the Board notes that the Veteran submitted an opinion from his private doctor. The Veteran’s doctor stated that he had examined the Veteran and reviewed his VA treatment records. The doctor then stated that his VA records do document a bilateral hearing loss and it is my opinion that this is at least as likely as not to have occurred from his occupation as a military policeman.” See Dr. T.T. May 2014 medical opinion. In sum, the Board finds that service connection is warranted for the Veteran’s left ear hearing loss. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has reviewed the available lay statements, his medical history, and the available medical opinions. After a review of the record, the Board finds that the evidence, both positive and negative as to the issue of service connection for left ear hearing loss is at least in equipoise. Based on the foregoing and resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that service connection is warranted for the Veteran’s left ear hearing loss. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Rescan, Associate Cousel