Citation Nr: 21021708 Decision Date: 04/13/21 Archive Date: 04/13/21 DOCKET NO. 18-35 646 DATE: April 13, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his current bilateral hearing loss symptomatology began during his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1960 to December 1962. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2017 rating decision. In March 2019 and September 2020, the Board remanded this claim for further evidentiary development. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, service connection can also be established through application of a statutory presumption for chronic diseases when manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. If a chronic disease is not manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation of service, then, generally, a showing of “continuity of symptoms” after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Furthermore, a layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his or her current symptomatology. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). The Veteran has a current, undisputed diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss. See January 2017 VA audiological examination. Further, in the March 2019 remand, the Board found the Veteran’s report of in-service noise exposure to be credible. Thus, his in-service noise exposure is conceded, and the remaining question before the Board is whether his current bilateral hearing loss disability is related to his active duty. In this regard, the Board acknowledges that the January 2017 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not related to his active service. The examiner’s opinion was based on the Veteran’s 1962 separation audiogram, which was within normal limits. In October 2019, the Veteran was afforded another VA examination. This examiner also opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not related to his active service on the basis that his separation audiogram was within normal limits. An addendum opinion was requested, and in September 2020 the same examiner provided an addendum opinion in which she again opined that the Veteran’s current hearing loss was not related to his active service. In addition to the normal hearing examination at separation, the examiner also noted that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has stated that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that permanent hearing loss directly attributable to noise exposure will develop long after the noise exposure. While the Board cannot ignore or disregard the VA examiner’s medical conclusions, the Board is free to assess medical evidence and is not compelled to accept a medical opinion. See Willis v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 66 (1991); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614 (1992). In this case, neither VA examiner addressed the Veteran’s competent lay statements regarding the onset of symptomatology. Indeed, in multiple written statements, the Veteran has asserted that his hearing has progressively worsened since service. As noted above, as a lay person, he is competent to give evidence about observable symptoms such as diminished hearing and onset of symptoms. Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 465. As such, the Board finds the Veteran’s competent lay statements to be credible. The evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss began in service or as a result of his in-service noise exposure, and the benefit of the doubt should be afforded to him. The Veteran has reported experiencing a continuity of bilateral hearing loss symptomatology since service, which is ultimately supported by the current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss and his conceded in-service noise exposure. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that the Veteran has been experiencing symptoms of bilateral hearing loss since his active service. Thus, service connection is warranted for his bilateral hearing loss, as it is a current disability which was onset during his active service. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Benson, 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.