Citation Nr: 21025746 Decision Date: 04/28/21 Archive Date: 04/28/21 DOCKET NO. 16-28 628 DATE: April 28, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT A bilateral hearing loss disability is etiologically related to acoustic trauma sustained in active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW A bilateral hearing loss disability was incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from November 1966 to October 1969, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was previously before the Board in March 2019, at which time the issue on appeal was remanded for additional development. The matter has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. Service Connection – Bilateral Hearing Loss Disability The Veteran has contended that his bilateral haring loss disability is related to his in-service noise exposure. VA has conceded that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma as a helicopter mechanic. Service treatment records (STRs) are silent for complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for a bilateral hearing loss disability. Regardless, the Veteran has reported that he first experienced symptoms associated with hearing loss while he was in active service and that those symptoms have continued since service. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991). Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran to be credible in that respect. In November 2014, the Veteran was afforded VA hearing loss examination. The examiner diagnosed a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. He opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not caused by or the result of noise exposure during service. While he conceded that the Veteran was exposed to high risk noise, the examiner found that the Veteran’s hearing was properly assessed as within normal limits upon his discharge. He concluded that the Veteran’s current high frequency impairment was related to his post-service occupational noise exposure working in the construction industry. The Veteran was provided an additional VA hearing loss examination in November 2019. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability was less likely than not caused by or the result of noise exposure during service. The examiner observed that there were no significant threshold shifts for either ear during service. Additionally, the examiner cited a 2005 Institute of Medicine study which concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence for delayed onset of hearing loss secondary to military noise exposure. Rather, hearing loss should occur at the time of the exposure. He noted that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether permanent noise-induced hearing loss could develop years after military noise exposure. He stated that the available anatomical and physiologic evidence suggested that delayed post-exposure noise-induced hearing loss was not likely. The Board finds that the VA medical opinions are inadequate for adjudication purposes. Specifically, the examiners did not consider the Veteran’s competent and credible statements regarding the in-service onset and continuity of his symptoms since service. As the opinions are inadequate, they cannot serve as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection. The Board notes that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As noted above, the Veteran is competent to identify reduced hearing acuity, and report on the chronicity of symptomatology since active service. Moreover, his statements have been found credible. In sum, VA has conceded acoustic trauma during the Veteran’s active service. The Veteran competently reported that his currently present hearing loss was incurred in and has continued since service. Furthermore, those statements have been found credible by the Board. While there are VA medical opinions of record against the claim, those opinions are not adequate. (Continued on the next page)   Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claims of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is at least in equipoise. Accordingly, reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the appellant and entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is 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. Ware, 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.