Citation Nr: 20002157 Decision Date: 01/09/20 Archive Date: 01/09/20 DOCKET NO. 14-23 422 DATE: January 9, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record is insufficient to establish that the Veteran’s hearing loss was due to his period of service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 5121A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served active duty in the United States Army from January 1966 to January 1968. In August 2017, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Video Conference hearing. A copy of the transcript has been associated with the claims file. In September 2017 and February 2018, the Board remanded this claim for additional development. 1. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran contends that his current bilateral hearing loss is due to his period of service. The Board finds that the evidence does not establish that the Veteran’s hearing loss was due to his period of service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Turning to the evidence, a May 2013 VA examination establishes that the Veteran has a current bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. The Veteran’s military personnel records confirm he was employed as a single engine airplane repairman, and therefore, exposure to noise is assumed to be highly probable and established by the record. At an August 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran reported that he noticed his hearing loss quite a few years back. He stated that it was a gradual thing. The Veteran went on to state that he started treatment for his hearing loss about six years ago with VA. The Veteran reported that he currently misses a lot of conversations and things on television. The Veteran’s wife also reported that the Veteran’s hearing loss was gradual. She reported that she noticed the Veteran’s hearing loss during his service, noting that she didn’t pay much attention to it until toward the end of his service. The Veteran’s wife went on to report that the Veteran began listening to the television at a higher volume. The Board notes that in a September 2017 Board remand, the Board found the May 2013 VA medical nexus opinion to be inadequate. Likewise, in a February 2018 Board remand, the Board found the October 2017 VA medical opinion addendum to be inadequate for the purpose of adjudicating the claim. Therefore, no further discussion of these opinions is necessary. In a July 2018 VA medical opinion addendum, the examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is due to his period of service. The examiner explained that the Veteran’s delayed awareness of the effects of noise on hearing had no direct relevance because his hearing sensitivity was normal when he discharged from the military. Regarding the Veteran’s wife’s lay statements, the examiner noted that poor communication situations could very well explain difficulties hearing conversations. He reported that this does not necessarily indicate the presence of cochlear hearing loss from noise exposure. The examiner addressed Hensley v. Brown, quoting that the Court “makes clear that NO objective evidence of having hearing loss during military service or at separation from service is not fatal to a service connection claim.” The examiner agreed with the statement; however, he noted that, in the case of this Veteran, there is affirmative evidence of having normal hearing sensitivity at discharge. The examiner stated that the absence of objective evidence of hearing loss is an irrelevant issue if there is evidence of normal hearing. The examiner further explained that there is scientific evidence that hearing loss due to noise exposure progresses, but this does not mean a person with normal hearing after the exposure will later develop a hearing loss from that exposure. The examiner acknowledged that from the Veteran’s lay statements, there was risk of hearing loss from exposure to noise from his work as a single engine airplane repairman. However, the examiner stated that the evidence is not equal for and against the presence of the injury. Therefore, the examiner concluded that, due to the imbalance of the evidence, the Veteran’s current hearing loss remains less likely than not related to military service noise exposure. After review of the record, the Board finds that the evidence of record is insufficient to establish a nexus between the Veteran’s current left ear hearing loss and his period of service. The July 2018 VA medical opinion addendum heavily weighs against a finding of service connection. The July 2018 VA medical opinion addendum indicates that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s hearing loss was related to service. The examiner provided a thorough rationale for the findings. Thus, as the July 2018 VA medical opinion is the only probative medical evidence of record as to this element of service connection, a nexus has not been established to meet the criteria of service connection. The Board has considered whether presumptive service connection is warranted for the Veteran’s hearing loss disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309. However, the record fails to show that sensorineural hearing loss was manifested to a degree of 10 percent within the one year following his discharge from active duty service. Therefore, service connection is not warranted. The Board has considered the Veteran’s and Veteran’s wife’s contention that his period of service resulted in his current hearing loss disability. Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, as to the specific issue in this case, providing a diagnosis for VA purposes or determining the etiology of sensorineural hearing loss falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011). In this regard, while the Veteran and his wife can competently report his symptoms, any diagnosis of hearing loss for VA purposes or any opinion regarding whether the Veteran’s currently diagnosed sensorineural hearing loss is related to his service requires medical expertise that the Veteran and his wife have not demonstrated. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372, 1376 (2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Ford The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.