Citation Nr: 21075951 Decision Date: 12/22/21 Archive Date: 12/22/21 DOCKET NO. 17-63 600 DATE: December 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT Bilateral hearing loss disability did not have its onset during the Veteran's active service and is not otherwise etiologically related to such service; and was not manifest to a compensable degree within a year of the Veteran's separation from active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1131, 1137, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from May 1976 to May 1980. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in September 2019. A transcript of that hearing has been added to the record. This case was previously before the Board in May 2021, 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. The Board notes that in May 2021 the issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus was also remanded by the Board for additional development. However, in an August 2021 rating decision, the Veteran was granted entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. There is no indication from the record that the Veteran has disagreed with the effective date or rating assigned in that decision. As such, that decision constitutes a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal, and the Board has limited its consideration accordingly. Service Connection Bilateral Hearing Loss The Veteran has asserted that he has bilateral hearing loss disability as a result of acoustic trauma sustained in active service. Specifically, the Veteran has reported that his duties and assignments as a cannon crewman caused hearing loss. A review of the service records shows that the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) during service was in fact cannon crewman. As such, the Board concedes the Veteran's exposure to hazardous noise in active service. Service treatment records (STRs) are silent for complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of hearing loss in either ear while the Veteran was in active service. Audiograms conducted in November 1978 and April 1979 show that the Veteran's hearing did not undergo a significant shift while he was in active service when compared with the audiogram results from the Veteran's April 1976 enlistment examination. In April 2015, the Veteran was afforded a VA audiology evaluation. At that time, audiometric testing showed the Veteran to have left ear hearing loss for VA purposes; however, he did not have right ear hearing loss for VA purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The examiner opined that the Veteran's left ear hearing loss disability was not related to his time in active service. In so finding, the examiner noted that even though the Veteran was a cannon crewman during service, there was no significant change in the Veteran's hearing during service. Further, the examiner noted that following the three years and nine months the Veteran served on active duty, he spent 24 years working in a factory. The examiner also noted that the Veteran had participated in recreational shooting on a monthly basis for approximately 4-5 years. Further, the examiner cited to the audiometric testing results, which showed the Veteran to have left ear hearing loss at 4000 hertz only, with the remainder of the testing levels to be within normal limits. In June 2021, the Veteran was afforded another VA audiology evaluation. At that time, audiometric testing showed the Veteran to have bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The examiner opined that it was less likely as not that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability was related to noise exposure sustained in active service. In so finding, the examiner noted that there was no significant, permanent shift in hearing thresholds beyond test variability from entrance to separation, which is objective evidence showing there was no permanent auditory damage while the Veteran was in active duty as a result of conceded noise exposure. Further, the examiner noted that there were no complaints of, or treatment for decreased hearing acuity while the Veteran was in active service. The examiner explained that although noise exposure was conceded and the relationship of noise, auditory damage, and hearing loss was well established; auditory damage and hearing loss themselves were not conceded based on noise exposure alone. Additionally, the examiner noted that as a result of the above findings, there was no evidence of an actual noise injury while the Veteran was in active service. In support of the opinion provided, the examiner cited to relevant medical literature. Further, the examiner discussed his qualifications to provide such an opinion. Namely the examiner noted his experience as a former Division Head of one of the largest military hearing conservation programs in the country. The examiner explained that it was common knowledge among those who worked in the practice of preserving hearing within the military, that not everyone exposed to noise will suffer from noise induced hearing loss, and that delayed onset of hearing loss due to previous noise exposure is unlikely to occur. As such, the examiner noted that if the objective evidence in the STRs shows that there was no prior history of significant threshold shift beyond normal variability while the Veteran was in service, any hearing loss occurring following service was less likely as not related to the noise exposure sustained in active service. Further, the examiner noted that many other factors contributed to the development of hearing loss following service; and in this particular Veteran's case, the Veteran worked in a high noise probability civilian occupation for 24 years post separation. The Board finds that the June 2021 VA medical opinion is adequate. In this regard, the examiner thoroughly reviewed and discussed the relevant evidence, considered the contentions of the Veteran, and provided a supporting rationale for the conclusions reached. Further the examiner relied on their own expertise, knowledge, and training when drafting their report. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Additionally, there is no medical opinion of record to the contrary. As such, the June 2021 VA medical opinion is the most probative evidence of record. While the laypersons are competent to report observable symptoms, the Veteran is not competent to provide a medical opinion linking his current bilateral hearing loss disability to noise exposure sustained while in active service. An opinion of that nature would require medical knowledge, training, and expertise and is simply outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Veteran is not competent to provide an etiology opinion in this case. Additionally, there is no indication from the record that hearing loss was manifest to a compensable degree in either ear within one year of the Veteran's separation from active service. As such, presumptive service connection for a chronic disease is not warranted in this case. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a). (Continued on the next page) Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is not 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 D. Andrew Ledman II 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.