Citation Nr: 20006967
Decision Date: 01/28/20	Archive Date: 01/28/20

DOCKET NO. 15-25 264
DATE: January 28, 2020

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss had its onset in service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309(a), 3.385.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from May 1974 to February 1976.  This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  In December 2019, the Veteran testified before the undersigned.

The Veteran asserts that his hearing loss is related to noise exposure in service related to his work as a jet engine mechanic.  See DD Form 214 and December 2019 Board hearing transcript at 3.  The Board agrees.

The Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA compensation purposes.  See May 2013 VA examination report; 38 C.F.R. § 3.385.  Moreover, in-service acoustic trauma is conceded as consistent with the circumstances of his service as a jet engine mechanic.  See DD Form 214.  Thus, the remaining question in this case is whether a causal relationship exists between the current bilateral hearing loss and the noise exposure in service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

In favor of the claim is the May 2018 opinion of audiologist A.L., Au.D., who opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss is more likely than not a result of his noise exposure while in service. Dr. A.L., for his rationale, noted that the Veteran’s right ear puretone thresholds have a “notch” at 4000 Hz and his left ear puretone thresholds have a “notch” at 6000 Hz, which when considering the Veteran’s in- service noise exposure and lack of significant post-service noise exposure, was as likely as not due to military noise exposure.  See May 2018 private medical opinion.

Against the claim is a May 2013 opinion of a VA audiologist, who opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss is less likely than not due to an event in service because “there is no evidence of [a threshold shift] in service” and his post-service employment was positive for noise exposure.  See May 2013 VA examination report. The opinion of the VA-contracted audiologist is not probative, as she does not address the possibility of late-onset hearing loss.  Moreover, the Veteran credibly testified to unexceptional noise exposure following service.  See December 2019 Board hearing transcript at 4-5.    

In contrast, the opinion of Dr. A.L. is probative.  While his opinion does not include an extensive rationale, his reference to the Veteran’s hearing loss as an related to his military duties and his critical review of the Veteran’s pattern of hearing loss adequately demonstrates his opinion that the Veteran’s hearing loss is proximately due to a noise injury in service.  

Thus, as all the probative evidence of record weighs in favor of the claim, the criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are met, and the appeal as to this issue is granted.

 

 

S. BUSH

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	G. Rouse, Associate Counsel

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.