Citation Nr: 18154856 Decision Date: 11/30/18 Archive Date: 11/30/18 DOCKET NO. 15-03 685 DATE: November 30, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s bilateral sensorineural hearing loss disability is attributable to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Bilateral sensorineural hearing loss disability was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1962 to August 1966. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss disability The Veteran contends that his hearing loss is due to in-service noise exposure. The Board concludes the Veteran has a current bilateral sensorineural hearing loss disability that is related to in-service noise exposure. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Generally, to establish service connection, a claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Impaired hearing is considered a disability for VA purposes 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. An April 2014 VA examination report shows the Veteran to have bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. The examiner noted the Veteran reported his length of service and that he was positive for “noise exposure to headsets used. He reported no occupational noise exposure. He reported woodworking for 2-3 years on the weekends using earmuffs.” The examiner did not find the Veteran’s hearing loss disability was at least as likely as not caused by or the result of an event in service. In support of this opinion, the examiner noted an August 20, 1962 test showed hearing within normal limits and a July 7, 1966 test showed hearing within normal limits with no standard threshold shift or single hertz (Hz) decline. However, a review of the Veteran’s service treatment records does not support such findings. The audiometer section of an August 20, 1962 Report of Medical Examination shows the auditory threshold for all reported Hz levels to be 10 decibels. See service treatment records – medical, page 5. However, this appears to be inconsistent with August 24, 1962 automatic audiometer readings that reflect a range from -10 to 10 decibels. See service treatment records – medical, page 3. Furthermore, the VA examiner did not address all the audio test examinations in the Veteran’s service treatment records. The examiner did not address an October 1964 examination. The results in decibels are: HERTZ CNC 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 % RIGHT -5 -5 -5 -5 -10 --- LEFT -5 -10 -10 -10 -5 --- The July 7, 1966 results in decibels are: HERTZ CNC 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 % RIGHT 10 10 -5 -5 -10 --- LEFT 10 10 0 -5 -10 --- When comparing the results of the October 1964 hearing examination with the Veteran’s July 1966 separation examination, there is notable variance, particularly at 1000 Hz (15 decibel difference for the right ear and 20 decibels for the left). This supports that there was a shift in hearing during service and “a single Hz decline”, despite the VA examiner’s statement to the contrary. Additionally, despite not finding the Veteran’s hearing loss was due to service, the examiner opined the Veteran’s tinnitus was at least as likely as not caused by or a result of in-service noise exposure. A June 2013 treatment record from a private audiologist contains a statement in support of the Veteran’s claim. The private audiologist opined the Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus are “more likely than not to have been initially caused by Air Force noise exposure”. In support of this, the audiologist noted a lack of noise exposure before and after service. The Board finds this opinion and rationale to be consistent with the VA examiner’s opinion and rationale regarding tinnitus, and thus both opinions support the Veteran’s claim with regard to hearing loss. In light of the above, the weight of the evidence supports the Veteran’s claim and service connection for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss disability. Biswajit Chatterjee Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Gregory T. Shannon, Associate Counsel