Citation Nr: 21030426 Decision Date: 05/18/21 Archive Date: 05/18/21 DOCKET NO. 15-31 975 DATE: May 18, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active duty from September 1966 to July 1968. 2. Bilateral hearing loss is not shown for VA purposes. CONCLUSION OF LAW Bilateral hearing loss was not incurred in service and is not presumed to have been incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Service connection may be granted directly as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (1) the existence of a current 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 in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 under the following circumstances: (1) where a chronic disease or injury is shown in service and subsequent manifestations of the same disease or injury are shown at a later date unless clearly attributable to an intercurrent cause; or (2) where there is continuity of symptomatology since service; or (3) by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. Hearing loss is recognized by VA as a "chronic disease" under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a); therefore, the presumptive provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307, and 3.309 apply. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015). Hearing loss is considered a disability for VA purposes when the threshold level in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz (Hz) is 40 decibels or greater; 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. Turning to the evidence, in a May 2014 private audiology examination, test results were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 4000 RIGHT 30 35 35 40 LEFT 45 30 35 45 In an October 2014 VA examination, hearing loss was not shown for VA purposes. Specifically, test results were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 15 15 5 10 20 LEFT 15 10 5 10 15 In August 2019, the Board remanded the claim for an updated examination to determine if the Veteran had hearing loss for VA purposes. He underwent a VA examination in December 2020 and hearing loss for VA purposes was not shown. Test results were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 10 25 10 10 25 LEFT 10 10 10 10 25 The Board has the responsibility of weighing conflicting medical opinions and may place greater weight on one physician's opinion over another depending upon factors such as reasoning employed by the physicians and the extent to which they reviewed prior clinical records and other evidence. In this case, the Board affords the VA examinations more probative weight than the May 2014 private examination as they were most consistent. The record is not clear on why the private results were higher than the VA examinations but as the examinations are more current and consistent with one another, they are assigned more probative value. Therefore, the Board finds that hearing loss has not been shown for VA purposes, as audiometric testing did not show that the threshold testing was either 40 dBs in one frequency or 26 dBs or greater in at least three frequencies. As the first element of service connection, a current disorder, is not shown, the medical evidence does not support the claim of service connection. The Board has considered the Veteran's lay statements that hearing loss began in service. He is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge, as it comes to him through his senses; however, he is not competent to offer an opinion as to the etiology of his current disorder due to the medical complexity of the matters involved. Such competent evidence has been provided by the medical personnel who have examined the Veteran during his current appeal and by service records obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to the lay statements that have been submitted. Therefore, the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Danielle Ragofsky, 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.