Citation Nr: 21042080 Decision Date: 07/11/21 Archive Date: 07/11/21 DOCKET NO. 15-27 340A DATE: July 11, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence of record does not show the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to his active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the United States Army from April 1966 to April 1968. In April 2021, the Veteran was provided a hearing with the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a transcript of the proceeding is of record. 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 service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In order to establish service connection, the record must show competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d, 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). When considering such a claim for service connection, the Board must consider on a case-by-case basis, the competence and sufficiency of lay evidence offered to support a finding of service connection. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 Fed. Cir. 2007)). The mere conclusory or generalized lay statements that a service event or illness caused a current disability are insufficient. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278 (2010). For the chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), including sensorineural hearing loss (as organic diseases of the nervous system), service connection may alternatively be established with evidence of chronicity of the disease during service or during a presumptive period following service separation, or by showing a continuity of symptoms after service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015). When chronicity or continuity is established, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, no matter how remote in time from the period of service, will be service connected unless clearly attributable to causes unrelated to service ("intercurrent" causes). 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Entitlement to Service Connection: Bilateral Hearing Loss The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss is related to his active duty service, to include his position as a weapons infantryman. As an initial matter, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran has a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss that meets the VA threshold. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Additionally, the evidence establishes that the Veteran was exposed to noise in service, as he worked as a weapons infantryman and had confirmed combat service. Thus, the issue turns upon whether there is evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service injury and the present disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Board finds there is not. In February 2013, the Veteran received a VA examination. The examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not caused by or a result of an event in military service. The examiner noted that the Veteran had two examinations in service at induction and separation. The examiner rationalized that even though significant threshold shifts were documented at 250 and 500 Hertz, the separation audiogram revealed that his hearing remained well within normal limits bilaterally when compared to his pre-induction audiogram. In May 2015, the Veteran attended another VA examination. The examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not caused by or a result of an event in military service. The examiner reiterated the February 2013 examiner's rationale, while adding that threshold shifts at 250-500 Hertz at separation are common and almost always temporary. The examiner further noted that these shifts can be caused by a cold or congestion, and noise exposure would impact higher frequencies such as 3000-6000 Hertz. The Board notes that VA treatment records show treatment and complaints of hearing loss. However, none of the records relate the Veteran's condition to his active duty service. His records further show he reported normal hearing during a June 2000 VA examination and did not complain of hearing loss until December 2004, over 35 years after his active duty service. At his April 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran clarified that December 2004 was the first time he had gotten his hearing tested because that was when the hearing loss had gotten really bad, but he first noticed hearing loss after service in about 2000. Therefore, the Board finds the February 2013 and May 2015 VA opinions to be of significant probative value in determining that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is not related to his period of service. The Board notes that the probative value of medical opinion evidence is based on the medical experts' personal examination of the patient, their knowledge, and skill in analyzing the data, and their medical conclusion. As is true with any piece of evidence, the credibility and weight to be attached to these opinions are within the province of the adjudicator. Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470-71 (1993). Whether a physician provides a basis for his or her medical opinion goes to the weight or credibility of the evidence in the adjudication of the merits. See Hernandez-Toyens v. West, 11 Vet. App. 379, 382 (1998). Here, the reviewing physicians' opinions were based on review of the Veteran's lay contentions, his reported medical history, examination of the Veteran, and review of the medical evidence of record. Further, complete and thorough rationales were provided for the opinions rendered. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's representative's contention at the April 2021 Board hearing that the May 2015 VA examination was inadequate because the speech discrimination scores were found to be not valid for rating purposes. However, the issue on which the Veteran's claim of service connection turns is whether his bilateral hearing loss is related to his period of service. Because rating the level of severity of the Veteran's hearing loss with speech discrimination scores is not pertinent to the matter of service connection, and the May 2015 VA nexus opinion is otherwise adequate (as explained above), the Board finds that a remand for a new VA examination is not necessary. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's assertions that his hearing loss was due to in-service noise exposure. The Board recognizes that lay persons are competent to provide medical opinions on some medical issues. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011). However, although the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms, any opinion regarding whether any hearing disability is related to his military service, to include noise exposure from his position as a weapons infantryman, requires medical expertise that the Veteran has not demonstrated since hearing loss can have many causes. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376 (2007). The Board has also considered whether hearing loss is warranted on a presumptive basis; however, there is no evidence that the Veteran had hearing loss to a compensable degree within 1 year after discharge from service or that he experienced hearing loss continuously since discharge from service. In fact, the Veteran's record shows multiple VA examinations immediately following his service, to include in May 1968, December 1971, and May 1973, in which he never reported or complained of hearing issues. Further, as noted above, the Veteran reported at his Board hearing that he first noticed hearing loss in 2000, which is over 30 years after his active duty service. In light of the foregoing, the Board concludes that the preponderance of evidence is against the claim and the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed Cir. 2001). JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Negron, 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.