Citation Nr: 21065750 Decision Date: 10/27/21 Archive Date: 10/27/21 DOCKET NO. 19-09 345 DATE: October 27, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to in-service noise exposure. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1988 to May 1992. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of an August 2018 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing conducted by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in March 2021. Service Connection Service connection may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In general, service connection requires the following: (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). For the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz (Hz) is 40 decibels or greater; or when the thresholds for at least three of these frequencies are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 decibels, and higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). For certain chronic diseases, including organic diseases of the nervous system such as sensorineural hearing loss, a presumption of service connection arises if the disease is manifested to a degree of 10 percent within one year following discharge from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). When a chronic disease is not shown to have manifested to a compensable degree within one year after service, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) for the showing of chronic disease in service, there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. When the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support a claim for such diseases; however, such continuity of symptomatology may only support a claim for those chronic diseases listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran contends that his hearing loss was caused by exposure to loud noise while in service. The record demonstrates the Veteran has a current bilateral hearing loss disability as defined by VA regulations. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Therefore, a current disability is established. With respect to an in-service incurrence, acoustic trauma in service has been found by the RO as service connection for tinnitus has been granted. See January 2019 rating decision. Therefore, the remaining question is whether there is a relationship between the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and his qualifying service. The Veteran's service treatment records do not demonstrate any diagnosis or treatment for audiological disorders. During the March 1992 separation examination, the Veteran's audiogram reported thresholds within normal limits and the examiner reported his ears as clinically normal. A November 2017 private audiogram showed hearing loss for VA purposes, but did not provide an opinion regarding etiology of the hearing loss. The Veteran was afforded a VA audiological examination in August 2018. The examiner found the Veteran's hearing loss was at least as likely as not related to service. The examiner reasoned there is normal hearing on separation with thresholds too low for any permanent significant shift in hearing thresholds to have occurred from entrance, there is no evidence of permanent auditory damage on active duty and there is no report of decreased hearing in claims file or at separation. During his March 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he was assigned to a warehouse for specialty gear for eighteen months where he was exposed to noise from electric and diesel forklifts. See March 2021 Board hearing transcript, pg. 3. He testified that the diesel forklifts parked in the back of the warehouse and had to come all the way through the warehouse, so even if he was not on the forklift, he was exposed to the noise. Id. He testified that the diesel forklifts have loud beeping backup alarms which were constantly ringing in the warehouse. The Veteran further testified that during his last 15 months of service he was assigned to an air station where he did the job of a flight specialist. Id. He testified that he was assigned out to the flight line to deliver parts to the various squadrons, sometimes on the far end of the flight line. Id. He testified to wearing hearing protection while on a diesel vehicle but not while out on the loading dock. Id at pg. 4. He testified that he experienced hearing problems in service, that it got worse over time, and that he still has problems. Id at pg. 5. He testified that he met his spouse the year after he got out of the Marine Corps and that she noticed he was having problems hearing at that time. Id. The Veteran submitted a March 2021 statement from his spouse following the Board hearing. C.M. stated that she met her husband while working together about five months after his discharge from the Marine Corps. She stated that during the early years of their relationship, whenever they were in a restaurant or any type of place with background noise, her husband would always speak much louder. She stated that he often asked her to repeat what she said, or what a friend or family member said when they were out for dinner or at a family gathering because he could not hear the conversation and that he would respond with what he thought he heard which sometimes caused laughter and sometimes caused anger. She stated that by the time they were married, she noticed he needed to keep the radio in the car up to hear the lyrics and the television on very loud to understand what was being said. She further stated that when their youngest child was a getting a hearing test at two years old, her husband was in the room with him but could not hear the sounds their son was hearing at which time the hearing tech suggested he get checked. She stated that she finally insisted he do something, and that he got his first set of hearing aids in 2017. She stated he still has issues hearing in certain situations, even with hearing aids. The Veteran and his spouse are competent to report on the onset and continuity of his current symptomatology. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a [layperson] is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). Additionally, the Veteran and his spouse's statements are credible because they have been consistent with each other and are not in conflict with the other evidence of record related to the onset of his symptomology. Cf. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Board recognizes that the August 2018 VA examiner documented the Veteran's complaints of difficulty hearing since 1991 but these complaints were not addressed in the opinion. The report does not indicate that statements from the Veteran are inconsistent with the principles of medical science and/or the evidence in this case. Moreover, although the examiner stated that there was "normal hearing on separation" and the thresholds were too low for any permanent significant shift in hearing thresholds, a review of the entrance and separation audiogram appears to show a worsening that was not explained by the examiner. As such, the Board finds there is sufficient evidence to support a link between the Veteran's diagnosed bilateral hearing loss, and in-service noise exposure, despite the August 2018 examiner's findings. In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that the evidence of record is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss is related to his active duty service. Therefore, after reviewing the lay statements and medical opinion of record, and after resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted based on continuity of symptomology since service. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Aston, 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.