Citation Nr: 21002955 Decision Date: 01/19/21 Archive Date: 01/19/21 DOCKET NO. 15-34 932A DATE: January 19, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385 REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1964 to March 1986. In February 2019, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  A transcript of that hearing is of record   This case has a long procedural history.  The appeal was most recently before the Board in August 2020 when it was remanded for further development.  The Board finds there has been substantial compliance with the remand directives and the Board will proceed to adjudication.  Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).  Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran contends that his current bilateral hearing loss is due to in-service acoustic trauma. The Veteran’s service personnel record reflects that his military occupational specialty (MOS) while on active duty was as an aircraft maintenance specialist. Therefore, in-service noise exposure is conceded. The Veteran has been diagnosed with hearing loss that meets the criteria for impaired hearing for VA compensation purposes. See April 2013 VA examination. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The question for the Board is whether it is related to service. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA compensation purposes and evidence shows that he had in-service noise exposure, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a), (d), 3.385. The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) includes audiological tests during service in October 1964 and October 1965 that reflect higher than normal values in audiometric data, but normal on February 1968 separation examination. In a statement received in November 2011, the Veteran reported that his hearing loss began during service in August 1966, that he was treated for hearing loss during service, and he was told at his discharge physical that his hearing had dropped from an “A” to a “C” during service. Additionally, in his August 2013 notice of disagreement, the Veteran reported he had had constant hearing loss since service. At the February 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he first notice hearing loss a year and a half after his separation from service. Taken together, the several VA opinions of record establish that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is not at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including acoustic trauma. The Board had previously found a November 2019 negative VA opinion inadequate and those findings will not be considered. In March 2020, a VA examiner further explained that there were not human studies available that had provided a clinical correlation to draw a conclusion beyond speculation regarding delayed onset hearing loss. The March 2020 examiner also noted that the one study that supports delayed onset hearing loss was conducted with mice. In August 2020, the same VA examiner provided a negative nexus opinion and directly addressed the Veteran’s in-service audiological tests and articles cited to by the Veteran’s representative. The examiner identified that while the in-service testing contained test-retest variability, it was within the normal range of hearing and the normal hearing at enlistment and separation were crucial. Regarding the cited studies, addressing Adding Insult to Injury: Cochlear Nerve Degeneration after “Temporary” Noise-Induced Hearing Loss, 29 Journal of Neuroscience, Nov. 11, 2009 (45) 149977-14085, the examiner noted that there were no human studies to support delayed onset hearing loss. Additionally, the examiner noted the study referred to in Aging after Noise Exposure: Acceleration of Cochlear Synaptopathy in “Recovered” Ears, 35 The Journal of Neuroscience May 13, 2015 (19) 7509-7520, addressed the need for further studies regarding central auditory processing issues related to noise exposure and did not address the Veteran’s type of hearing loss, sensorineural hearing loss. Taken together, the examiner’s March and August 2020 opinions are probative, because they are based on an accurate medical history and provide an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008); Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155 (1993). The Veteran believes his bilateral hearing loss is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Veteran in this case is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the opinions of the VA opinions. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Eric Struening 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.