Citation Nr: 20052979 Decision Date: 08/10/20 Archive Date: 08/10/20 DOCKET NO. 19-02 376 DATE: August 10, 2020 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. REMANDED Service connection for atrial fibrillation is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to establish service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from May 1964 to May 1966. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In June 2020, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Hearing loss The Veteran reports that he is entitled to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. In support, the Veteran reports diminished hearing during since service, which he attributes to hazardous noise exposure during military training in artillery. See BVA Hearing transcripts (June 2020). VA may only find hearing loss to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies of 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. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Veteran is currently diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss, which meets the criteria for VA hearing loss as a disability. See VA medical examination (July 2015) and see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Board notes that at his March 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran reported that he was exposed to loud noise during his military career in artillery. See BVA hearing transcripts (June 2020). Moreover, the Veteran and spouse noticed a decline in his hearing in service. Id. The Board acknowledges that on the December 2018 statement of the case (SOC) the RO stated that there is no nexus between the Veteran’s hearing loss and service. See SOC (December 2018). However, the medical and lay evidence, shows that the Veteran was exposed to acoustic trauma in service and that his hearing loss had its onset in service. Thus, service connection is warranted. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994) (noting that “the element of cause and effect has been totally by-passed in favor of a simple temporal relationship between the incurrence of the disability and the period of active duty”). Further, the Veteran credibly and competently provided sworn testimony that his condition started in service and has been recurrent ever since. The Veteran is competent to report hearing loss symptoms that began in service and the Board finds the Veteran's statements credible. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a)(2); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005); Layno. The Board finds that the medical and lay evidence, including the Veteran's sworn testimony, shows that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss condition had its onset in service and have been recurrent since that time. Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss had its onset during his military service. As such, service connection is granted. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). REASONS FOR REMAND Atrial fibrillation. The Veteran reports that service connection is warranted for atrial fibrillation. In support, he stated that his condition got worse in 1976 and he received medical care for this condition at the Milton Hershey medical center. The Veteran medical records show that he has been diagnosed with atrial fibrillation. Additionally, he continues to receive medical care for his condition, including the use of a peacemaker and defibrillator. See BVA Hearing transcripts (June 2020). The Board finds that the Veteran warrants a medical examination for his atrial fibrillation. To date, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA medical examination for his condition. Therefore, the Board finds it necessary for a VA examination to determine the nature, onset and etiology of his heart disability. As there is no examination to determine the cause of his atrial fibrillation, a remand is necessary to have the Veteran examined and for an examiner to review his claims folder and provide opinions necessary to adjudicate this appeal. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain complete VA and Non-VA treatment records of the Veteran’s atrial fibrillation. 2. Notify the Veteran that he may submit lay statements from himself and from other individuals who have first-hand knowledge, and/or were contemporaneously informed of his in-service and post-service heart problems. The Veteran should also be invited to submit medical evidence addressing his atrial fibrillation. The Veteran should be provided an appropriate amount of time to submit this lay and medical evidence. 3. Schedule a VA examination (or telehealth interview, review of the record, etc. if an in-person examination is not feasible). Whether an in-person examination is necessary should be determined by the examiner to determine the nature, onset, etiology of his atrial fibrillation. a) The examiner should provide a full description of his heart problems, to specifically include atrial fibrillation, and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability. b) The examiner must opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s heart problems, to include atrial fibrillation, are related to or had its onset in service. c) In doing so the examiner must specifically acknowledge and discuss the Veteran’s medical and competent lay reports regarding the onset of his heart problems and treatment. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Alvarado- 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.