Decision 19100828

Citation Nr: 19100828
Decision Date: 01/04/19	Archive Date: 01/03/19

DOCKET NO. 15-06 850A
DATE:	January 4, 2019

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, and he was exposed to jet engine noise from working on the flight line during active service.  Hearing loss was not noted during service and it did not manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year of discharge from service.  The competent evidence weighs against a nexus between the current disability and active service.  

2. The Veteran has bilateral tinnitus, described as ringing in both ears.  The disability was not noted in service and did not manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year of discharge.  The evidence does not support a nexus between the current disability and his active service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385.

2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from June 1962 to June 1966.  This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the March 2015 substantive appeal (via VA Form 9), the Veteran requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ).  The hearing was scheduled for March 9, 2018.  In the preceding month, the Veteran was sent two notice letters informing him of the time, place, and location of the hearing.  The Veteran failed to appear for the scheduled hearing and did not provide good cause or otherwise request the hearing be postponed or rescheduled.  Accordingly, the Board will proceed as if the request for the hearing has been withdrawn.  38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d).

The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its finding of fact and conclusion of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those reasonably raised by the record.  See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008).

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  For VA purposes, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz 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.

1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss

The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss.  For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted.

The Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.  Objective test results noted upon a June 2013 VA examination report confirm his hearing loss is considered a disability for VA purposes.  38 C.F.R. § 3.385.

Generally, the Veteran contends his hearing loss is related to his military service.  His service records show he worked as an aircraft mechanic along the flight line.  He did use hearing protection.  He was primarily exposed to noise from jet engines.  

The Veteran underwent a VA examination in June 2013.  He reported in-service noise exposure from aircraft and post-service occupational noise exposure from
 loss.  For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted.

The Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.  Objective test results noted upon a June 2013 VA examination report confirm his hearing loss is considered a disability for VA purposes.  38 C.F.R. § 3.385.

Generally, the Veteran contends his hearing loss is related to his military service.  His service records show he worked as an aircraft mechanic along the flight line.  He did use hearing protection.  He was primarily exposed to noise from jet engines.  

The Veteran underwent a VA examination in June 2013.  He reported in-service noise exposure from aircraft and post-service occupational noise exposure from 38 years working as a pipe fitter.  Hearing protection was used in both situations.  He reported no history of recreational noise exposure, familial hearing loss, or head injury.  He reported onset of bilateral hearing loss approximately four to five years ago.  The examiner was able to review the claims file and the Veteran’s service records.  The examiner found that whisper voice test upon entrance to service was 15/15, an in-service audiogram from March 1965 showed hearing within normal limits, and April 1966 audiometric testing for separation from service also showed hearing within normal limits.  The examiner found that none of the in-service test results showed a threshold shift.  Based on the available evidence, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not related to his active military service.  The examiner explained that this was based on lack of evidence in the claims file and lack of proximity between the dates of service and the date of this evaluation and the date of onset of hearing loss.  

The Board finds the June 2013 nexus opinion probative because the examiner considered the entire medical history of the disability and the Veteran’s relevant lay statements.  The examiner’s conclusion was based on length of time between service and onset and, generally, a lack of favorable evidence in the claims file.  While this latter reason was nonspecific, review of the examination report as a whole revealed the examiner did consider all relevant information regarding noise exposure and the history of the disability.  This included in-service testing that showed hearing within normal limits and no threshold shift, post-service occupational noise exposure with hearing protection, and the Veteran’s approximation of onset of hearing loss only 4 to 5 years prior.  The examination report and opinion did provide the Board a clear description of all relevant data points necessary to evaluate this claim.

The claims file does not contain evidence indicating the Veteran’s hearing loss onset during service or to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year of discharge from service.  In-service audiometric testing and testing on separation examination showed hearing within normal limits without threshold shift.  On the Report of Medical History the Veteran completed in conjunction with his separation examination, he marked “no” to ear, nose, or throat trouble.  The Veteran also reported to the June 2013 VA examiner that his hearing loss onset 4 to 5 years prior to that examination, so approximately the 2008-2009 timeframe.  That the Veteran filed a claim of service connection for this disability does imply he believes it may be related to his active service; however, he does not possess the requisite medical training or expertise to make such a complex etiological determination.  See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  The June 2013 VA examination report and opinion weigh against a nexus between the current bilateral hearing loss and active service.  They are the only competent evidence in that regard, and they are persuasive.

In sum, the evidence shows the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and that he was exposed to jet engine noise from working on the flight line during active service.  Hearing loss was not noted during service and it did not manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year of discharge from service.  38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a).  The Veteran’s own statements indicate hearing loss onset approximately 4 to 5 years prior to the June 2013 VA examination, over four decades after discharge from active service.  The competent evidence weighs against a nexus between the current disability and active service.  Accordingly, there is no reasonable doubt to be resolved in this instance.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.  Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted.

2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus

The Veteran seeks service connection for tinnitus.  For the reasons that follow, the Board
.303(b), 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a).  The Veteran’s own statements indicate hearing loss onset approximately 4 to 5 years prior to the June 2013 VA examination, over four decades after discharge from active service.  The competent evidence weighs against a nexus between the current disability and active service.  Accordingly, there is no reasonable doubt to be resolved in this instance.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.  Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted.

2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus

The Veteran seeks service connection for tinnitus.  For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted.

In the February 2013 VA Form 21-526EZ, the Veteran described a current symptom of ringing in his bilateral ears.  The Veteran is competent to diagnose tinnitus by its observable manifestation and it does not require medical expertise to establish its existence.  See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002); Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1714 (28th ed. 1994) (defining tinnitus as “a noise in the ears, such as ringing, buzzing, roaring, or clicking”).

Generally, the Veteran contends his disability is related to service.  During service, he served as an aircraft mechanic and was exposed to jet engine noise working on the flight line.

His service records do not show any complaints, treatment, or diagnoses related to tinnitus.  His April 1966 separation examination showed a normal clinical evaluation of the ears and drums.  On the Report of Medical History he completed in conjunction with the separation examination he marked “no” to ear, nose, or throat trouble.  There are no treatment records that provide evidence relevant to the issue of a nexus between his current condition and active service.  The Veteran did not report a date of onset or indicate that the condition began in or has continued from service or a date within a year of discharge from service.  

The Veteran underwent a VA examination in June 2013.  He denied tinnitus and did not report any current symptoms or etiological history.  Given the paucity of evidence related to the existence and history of the condition, no nexus opinion was provided.

In sum, the evidence shows the Veteran has a current disability of tinnitus and he was exposed to jet engine noise while working on the flight line during service.  The disability, or any related symptomology, was not noted during service and there is no indication it manifested to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year of discharge from service.  38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a).  Apart from the Veteran’s implied contention that the condition is related to service, arising from the filing of the claim, there is no evidence supporting a nexus.  That implied contention is not competent because, given the facts of this case, the Veteran does not have the requisite medical training or expertise to make such an etiological connection.  Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377.  Again, he did not report that it began during or near-in-time to service, a fact that he would be competent to make as it is readily observable.  The Veteran bears the burden of establishing all elements of a claim for service connection, including the nexus element.  Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2009).   

(Continued on the next page)

 

As the nexus element has not been established, the claim of service connection for tinnitus is denied.

 

D. JOHNSON

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Mike A. Sobiecki, Associate Counsel