Citation Nr: 21071843 Decision Date: 12/01/21 Archive Date: 12/01/21 DOCKET NO. 16-56 096 DATE: December 1, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is at least in equipoise that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to his in-service exposure to hazardous noise. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability 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 as an aircraft mechanic in the United States Navy from May 1972 until his honorable discharge in May 1974, with an earlier period of active duty for training from September 1971 to February 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision of the Regional Office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In September 2021, the Board remanded the case to the Regional Office for further development. Specifically, the Board directed the Regional Office to obtain a new VA examination on the nature and etiology of his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. An examination took place in September 2021 and he was awarded service connection for tinnitus in a subsequent rating decision. As such that claim is no longer on appeal. Service Connection VA provides compensation for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. This is referred to as a "service connection." 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Regulations also provide that 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). Generally, 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). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present 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 the so-called "nexus" requirement. Holton v Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially 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). Specific to claims for service connection for hearing loss, there is a regulatory requirement that a claimant have a disability that meets certain auditory thresholds and speech recognition scores. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. As a result, at a minimum, an examination by an audiologist is required and a medical opinion addressing the likely etiology of any hearing loss disability is often useful. Once VA affords a veteran examination, however, it must ensure that it is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). An adequate examination must consider the issue at hand and provide sufficient analysis for the Board to weigh that examination against others. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007). A medical opinion is adequate when it is based on consideration of a Veteran's medical history and examinations, and the final report describes the disability in sufficient detail so that the Board's evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one. Ardison v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 405 (1994); Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121 (1991). Furthermore, in deciding whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2018); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt will be given to the Veteran. Id. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran asserts that his bilateral hearing loss is due to exposure to acoustic trauma while serving as an aircraft mechanic. The Veteran has bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. See September 2021 VA Examination. His hearing loss as established in the last VA examination is described below: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 15 35 70 LEFT 20 30 65 80 His Maryland CNC speech discrimination was 84 percent in the right ear and 80 percent in the left ear. He was diagnosed with sensorineural hearing loss in both ears. As a result, he has met the first element of service connection as he has a current disability and has bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Veteran's MOS was an airplane mechanic with the U.S. Navy. See DD-214. He testified at his hearing that he was an "aviation hydraulics man" and "spent my time as a plane captain on the flight deck of the USS Midway or on the flight lines that would be on a naval air station." The September 2021 VA examiner found that he had a "high probability for hazardous noise exposure" due to his MOS. As a result, the Board finds that he was exposed to hazardous noise in service. The Veteran left service in May 1974 and at that time he had a separation audiology examination. His hearing was within normal levels. See May 1974 Service Treatment Records. The Veteran was first diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss in April 2011 where he had mild sensorineural hearing loss at 4000 hertz and above in the right ear and normal hearing through 2000 hertz with a mild moderate sensorineural hearing loss in the high frequencies in the left ear. See April 2011 Audiology Examination and September 2021 VA Examination. At his July 2021 Board hearing, he testified that he has had hearing problems since service and only sought treatment for hearing loss after his marriage because he lived alone and did not notice how much his hearing had worsened. Although his MOS and reports at the examination establish that he had a high probability of noise exposure in service, he also reported wearing hearing protection in service. He reported noise exposure post service to include working in construction where he also wore hearing protection. However, he testified that his post service employment largely took place in an office setting and that he would occasionally be on a job site with hearing protection. The most recent VA examination, post remand, in September 2021 found that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise in service but that his hearing loss was not "due solely to military noise exposure." This however is not the applicable standard for service connection. The law does not require that a disability be due solely to an event in service. Rather, by stating that the hearing loss disability is not solely due to service, the examiner is in essence finding that part of the hearing loss disability is due to service. As such, his claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. A. Johnston, 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.