Citation Nr: 18151931 Decision Date: 11/20/18 Archive Date: 11/20/18 DOCKET NO. 16-35 667 DATE: November 20, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. REMANDED Whether new and material evidence has been provided sufficient to reopen the previously denied claim of service connection for tinnitus is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have all been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1962 to December 1965. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). “To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: “(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”- the so-called “nexus” requirement.” Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 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. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). Bilateral Heating Loss The Veteran contends he developed bilateral hearing loss because of exposure to hazardous noise while serving in the military. Regarding the first element required for service connection, the results from a May 2013 VA audiological examination establish that the Veteran has a current bilateral hearing loss disability that satisfies the criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Addressing the second element of service connection, the Veteran served as a cannoneer in service. He stated he experienced noise exposure from firing cannons without hearing protection in service. The Board finds that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise during service, and therefore the second element is met. As such, this case turns on whether the Veteran’s current hearing loss is related to his service. The Veteran’s November 1962 entrance examination indicated he scored 15/15 on a whisper test. His November 1965 separation examination did not record the results of a whisper test or audiometric results. The veteran reported no problems with his ears, nose, or throat during service or at separation. The Veteran attended a VA examination in May 2013. The examiner stated that the Veteran’s hearing loss was not a least as likely as not caused by or the result of an event in military service. The examiner provided the rationale that the Veteran’s current degree and configuration of hearing loss would not have gone unnoticed by the Veteran upon his separation from service. The examiner further stated that the Veteran reported he first noticed his hearing loss in the last 5-10 years, which was approximately 48 years after his separation from the service. He reasoned that once the Veteran is no longer exposed to miliary noise, his hearing would not continue to decline due to said exposure. The Board finds the May 2013 VA examiner’s opinion to be not significantly probative. The Veteran has stated his hearing loss has gotten worse in the last 5-10 years. As such, he did not contend that he had his current level of hearing loss during service. Therefore, the examiner’s statement that his current hearing loss would not have gone unnoticed during service is of little probative value. The record also contains a June 2016 private audiologist opinion. The audiologist stated that is was at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s hearing loss is a result from his 3 years of miliary service. She noted that the Veteran worked as a crew member for a Howitzer cannon, which has a firing blast of up to 175 decibels, and that he reported symptoms consistent with a temporary threshold shift after exposure to firing the cannon in service. The Veteran reported noticing a decrease in communication ability 10-15 years prior to the examination and it has gotten progressively worse. The audiologist cited research that concludes that noise exposure is more dangerous than assumed, and there is a potential for underlying neuropathology that has long-term consequences on auditory processing skills. She stated that after much review, it is her medical opinion that traumatic acoustic events such as repeated exposure to cannon fire while on active duty can indeed lead to advanced degradation of cochlear functioning even after a separation of 30+ years. The Board finds this evidence probative of finding that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is related to his service. The opinion is well-reasoned and provided detailed rationale that addressed the length of time between the Veteran’s service and the onset of his hearing loss. According the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the Board finds that this opinion provides sufficient nexus between his current bilateral hearing loss and his in-service noise exposure. As such, resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is related to his active service. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. REASON FOR REMAND During the pendency of the appeal, in an October 2016 rating decision, with a January 2017 notification letter, the RO denied reopening of the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran filed a notice of disagreement in January 2018. As of this decision, no statement of the case (SOC) has been issued with respect to this claim. Consequently, the Board must remand this claim in order for the RO to issue an SOC (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)  The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Furnish the Veteran with an SOC regarding the issue of whether new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the previously denied claim for service connection for tinnitus has been received. JAMES G. REINHART Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Norah Patrick, Associate Counsel