Citation Nr: 21001388 Decision Date: 01/07/21 Archive Date: 01/07/21 DOCKET NO. 16-47 298 DATE: January 7, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT Bilateral hearing loss disability is related to acoustic trauma sustained in active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active naval service from March 1965 to March 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2021, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). Service Connection – Bilateral Hearing Loss Disability The Veteran asserts that he has a bilateral hearing loss disability which can be attributed to his active service noise exposure. The Veteran maintains that he noticed a decline in his ability to hear others while in service, and that it continued after service. At the outset, the Board notes that the Veteran has been granted entitlement to service connection for tinnitus as a result of noise exposure sustained in active service. As such, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma during his active service. Service treatment records (STRs) are silent for complaints of, or treatment for decreased hearing acuity while the Veteran was in active service. Further, the Veteran did not have bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes while in active service. Regardless, the Veteran is competent to report that he first experienced decreased hearing acuity during active service, and that the symptoms have continued ever since. Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran credible in that regard. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991). The Veteran was afforded a VA audiology evaluation in January 2016. Audiometric testing results at that time showed the Veteran to have bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. At that time, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability was less likely as not related to his active service. In so finding, the examiner noted that the Veteran had normal hearing at separation from service without changes to hearing thresholds. In July 2016, an addendum VA medical opinion was obtained. At that time, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability was less likely as not related to his active service. In so finding, the VA examiner noted that the Veteran’s largest threshold shift in his hearing during service was at 5 decibels, which was insignificant. The Board finds that the January 2016 and July 2016 VA medical opinions of record are inadequate for adjudication purposes. In this regard, the examiner failed to consider the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. As the opinions are not adequate, they cannot serve as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection. Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, as noted above, the Veteran is competent to identify decreased hearing acuity and he has been found credible in that regard. In sum, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma during active service. He has competently and credibly reported that he first experienced decreased hearing acuity during active service, and that his symptoms have continued since that time. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. The VA medical opinion of record against the claim is inadequate. (Continued on the next page)   Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claim is at least in equipoise. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran, and entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2018); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Sutherell, 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.