Citation Nr: 21063805 Decision Date: 10/18/21 Archive Date: 10/18/21 DOCKET NO. 16-55 379 DATE: October 18, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is etiologically related to acoustic trauma sustained in active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1154, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active air service from March 1971 to November 1994. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This case was before the Board in August 2019, at which time the issue currently on appeal was remanded for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for further appellate action. In a December 2020 rating decision, the Veteran was granted entitlement to service connection for right eye keratitis, representing a full grant of the matter previously on appeal. In a January 2021 rating decision, the Veteran was granted entitlement to service connection for chronic plaque psoriasis as well as right knee meniscal year, representing full grants of the matters previously on appeal. Accordingly, those matters are no longer before the Board. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1977). Service Connection Bilateral Hearing Loss The Veteran asserts that he has bilateral hearing loss as a result of acoustic trauma sustained in active service. Specifically, the Veteran reported that during active service he was exposed to hazardous noise in the form aircraft engines, ventilation systems, steam turbines, and hydraulic hammers; and, that he did not utilize hearing protection. The Board finds that the Veteran's report of noise exposure during service is consistent with air service and the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS). Therefore, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma during active service. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Direct service connection may be granted based on evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Certain chronic diseases, such as organic diseases of the nervous system, are subject to presumptive service connection if it manifests to a compensable degree within one year from separation from service even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. This presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). In an October 4, 1995, opinion, VA's Under Secretary for Health determined that it was appropriate to consider high frequency sensorineural hearing loss an organic disease of the nervous system and therefore a presumptive disability. The determination as to whether the requirements for service connection are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of the matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). In June 2016, the Veteran was afforded a VA audiological examination. At that time, the examiner noted that the Veteran experienced bilateral sensorineural hearing loss; however, hearing loss for VA purposes was not shown. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The examiner opined that the Veteran hearing loss was at least as likely as not related to in-service acoustic trauma. In support of this conclusion, the examiner noted that an in-service audiogram showed the presence of high frequency hearing loss prior to the Veteran's separation from service, which the examiner attributed to in-service acoustic trauma. This opinion reflects an adequate rationale. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). This opinion is therefore afforded probative weight. In October 2020, the Veteran was afforded another VA audiological evaluation. At that time, bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes was shown. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's right ear hearing loss was due to in-service noise exposure. In this regard, the examiner noted that the Veteran's separation audiogram was not available and therefore, threshold shifts and hearing loss during service could not be determined. The examiner also reported that the Veteran's current hearing loss was more consistent with age-related hearing loss rather than hearing loss due to acoustic trauma, as noise-induced hearing loss typically presented as worsened pure tone thresholds at the frequencies from 2000 to 6000 Hertz, and the Veteran's pure tone thresholds from 2000 to 6000 Hertz were consistent with or slightly better than the average for a man his age. Overall, the Board can identify no compelling reason to find the October 2020 VA examiner's opinion more probative than the favorable, June 2016 VA examiner's opinion on the nexus element. Therefore, entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is at least in equipoise and reasonable doubt must be resolved in the Veteran's favor. The Board is prohibited from developing additional evidence for the purpose of obtaining evidence against a claimant's case. See Mariano v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 305 (2003). The Board resolves all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor. As such, the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, supra. KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Christopher O'Donnell, 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.