HEARING LOSS

KRISTI L. GUNN · 2026 · Case ID: 26004492

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the U.S. Army from June 1962 to June 1965, appeals the denial of service connection for several conditions, including bilateral eye, left leg, left foot, right foot, and bilateral toe conditions. The Board granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss, finding it was at least as likely as not related to hazardous noise exposure during service, resolving reasonable doubt in the veteran's favor. The decision noted a private audiologist's opinion supporting this nexus, outweighing a negative VA opinion. For the bilateral eye condition, the veteran claimed an in-service injury from debris entering his eyes during a jump. However, service treatment records showed normal eyes and no complaints, and post-service records documented eye injuries from a 1972 automobile accident, leading the Board to deny service connection. For the left leg, bilateral foot, and bilateral toe conditions, the veteran claimed injuries from parachute jumps. The Board denied these claims, finding the evidence weighed against service connection. The Board noted the veteran's own testimony about pain onset in the late 1960s and placed greater weight on a May 2018 VA examination which attributed the conditions to degenerative processes and post-service labor, rather than in-service trauma. The Board also denied the secondary claim for the right foot condition as the primary left leg condition was denied. The case was remanded for addendum opinions regarding the right leg and spine conditions due to inadequate VA medical opinions.

Rationale

Private audiologist opinion found loss likely caused by noise exposure; Resolved reasonable doubt in veteran's favor; Overweight negative VA opinion

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

19-21 379

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26004492
Decision Date: 04/13/26 Archive Date: 04/13/26

DOCKET NO. 19-21 379
DATE: April 13, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye condition is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a left leg condition is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a left foot condition is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a right foot condition is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral toe condition is denied.

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for a right leg condition is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for a spine condition is remanded.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to hazardous noise exposure during service.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's bilateral eye condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

3. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's left leg condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

4. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's left foot condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

5. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's right foot condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

6. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's bilateral toe condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. 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.

2. The criteria for service connection for a bilateral eye condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for service connection for a left leg condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for service connection for a left foot condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for service connection for a right foot condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

6. The criteria for service connection for a bilateral toe condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from June 1962 to June 1965.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2018 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In April 2024, the Veteran testified at a virtual hearing by telephone before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of that proceeding has been associated with the record. In January 2025, the Veteran requested an additional hearing before the Board through his attorney at the time. In November 2025, VA unsuccessfully attempted to confirm whether the Veteran still desired another hearing. In December 2025, the Veteran was sent notification that he was scheduled for a virtual hearing before a VLJ on February 25, 2026. The Veteran failed to appear.

The Board notes that the Veteran was previously represented by a private attorney who withdrew representation in March 2025. The Veteran is currently represented by the Texas Veterans Commission.

The Board previously remanded the case in August 2024 for further development. In August 2024, the Veteran was sent the curricula vitae of the VA examiners that performed his February 2016 and May 2018 VA examinations. The Veteran was issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) in December 2024 which readjudicated claims of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and a bilateral eye condition, which were reopened by the Board's August 2024 decision. Therefore, the requested development as to the claims adjudicated below has been completed to the extent possible, and no further action is necessary to comply with the Board's remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).

Service Connection

A veteran is entitled to VA disability compensation if there is a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110.

Generally, to establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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, the so-called "nexus" requirement. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Service connection may be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to or the result of service-connected disease or injury.

38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) proximately caused by or (b) proximately aggravated by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995) (en banc).

In order to prevail on the issue of secondary service connection, the record must show: (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) medical nexus evidence establishing a connection between the service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998); see also Allen, supra.

1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted.

The Veteran is seeking to establish service connection for bilateral hearing loss. During the April 2024 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he served as an airborne trooper in service. He spent much time on airfields and in aircrafts. He began noticing problems with his hearing "a while back." The Veteran noted that his occupation following service did not involve a lot of noise.

In a December 2015 statement, Dr. C. C., an audiologist, indicated he had performed the Veteran's audiometric assessment and it revealed mild to moderate sensory-neural hearing loss bilaterally. Dr. C. C. noted that the Veteran had served in the U.S. Army and was exposed to excessive noise levels from aircraft engines and gun fire while performing his duties. Dr. C. C. indicated he had reviewed the Veteran's service treatment records and while his June 1962 entrance physical showed normal hearing, a May 1979 physical revealed mild to moderate hearing loss bilaterally. Dr. C. C. opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was as least as likely as not caused by noise exposure during service based on his examination and interview of the Veteran and review of the records.

Following a review of the evidence of record, the Board resolves reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran and finds that entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted.

The Board acknowledges that there is a negative VA medical opinion of record but finds no reason to place greater probative value on this opinion over the December 2015 private opinion.

Accordingly, the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted.

2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye condition is denied.

The Veteran is seeking to establish service connection
C. opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was as least as likely as not caused by noise exposure during service based on his examination and interview of the Veteran and review of the records.

Following a review of the evidence of record, the Board resolves reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran and finds that entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted.

The Board acknowledges that there is a negative VA medical opinion of record but finds no reason to place greater probative value on this opinion over the December 2015 private opinion.

Accordingly, the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted.

2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye condition is denied.

The Veteran is seeking to establish service connection for a bilateral eye condition. During the April 2024 Board hearing, the Veteran testified about an in-service incident when he jumped from a plane and landed in a cemetery. Due to the parachute and the wind, he was dragged for eight to 10 feet, getting debris in his eyes. The Veteran believed "probably a rock or something" hit his eyes because there were no other incidents in his life that would have resulted in an eye injury. He noted that after he was prescribed glasses, his eyes finally felt better.

Review of the Veteran's service treatment records do not reflect complaints of, treatment for, or diagnosis of an eye condition. Undated Reports of Medical Examination and History, conducted after enlistment but prior to separation, show that the Veteran's eyes were clinically evaluated as normal and he denied eye trouble. An April 1965 Report of Medical Examination upon the Veteran's separation from service shows that his eyes were clinically evaluated as normal. His eyesight was 20/20 in both eyes. On an April 1965 Report of Medical History, the Veteran denied currently having or having a history of eye trouble. A May 1979 Report of Medical Examination for enlistment in the National Guard clinically evaluated the Veteran's eyes as normal. His eyesight was 20/25 in both eyes. On a May 1979 Report of Medical History, the Veteran indicated he had vision in both eyes, did not wear glasses or contact lenses, and did not have a history of or currently have eye trouble.

Post-service treatment records reflect that in December 1972, the Veteran was admitted to the emergency room. He had jumped from a speeding car due to fear of the driver crashing into a bridge. The physician indicated he was resuming the Veteran's care from the original treating physician and noted that the Veteran's right eye was discolored. It was hemorrhagic and red around the conjunctiva. His left eye was covered by a patch but there was no evidence of redness and the eye was comfortable. The physician noted the Veteran had several contusions and bruises on his head. He complained of some dizziness, eye burning, and general aches all over. The Veteran was diagnosed with a foreign body in the left eye, hemorrhagic conjunctivitis in the right eye, and multiple bruises and abrasions of the face, knees, and extremities.

A January 1975 treatment record noted the Veteran's pupils were round, regular, and equally bilateral. The funduscopic exam showed no evidence of increased intercranial pressure.

A May 1976 physical examination of the eyes showed no significant abnormalities.

The Veteran began complaining of blurred vision in March 2015. A May 2015 ophthalmology note indicates the Veteran reported gradual loss of vision and floaters in both eyes over the years. He noted his vision was getting dim and he believed he needed new glasses. He denied injury to the eyes. The Veteran had cataract surgery on the left eye and was currently taking latanoprost. In August 2018, the Veteran presented for an epiretinal membrane (ERM) evaluation which showed moderate stage primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) in both eyes.

Following a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's bilateral eye condition is related to service.

Although the Veteran reported an incident in service where debris entered his eyes, the evidence weighs against finding his current bilateral eye condition was caused by the event in service. As noted above, the Veteran's service treatment records indicate his eyes were clinically evaluated as normal and he denied any vision trouble on his separation from service and years later when he attempted to enlist in the National Guard. Further, contrary to the Veteran's assertions that the only injury to his eyes occurred in service, treatment records document injuries to both the left and right eye in a 1972 automobile accident.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination in connection with his claim but feels it is not necessary.
Veteran's bilateral eye condition is related to service.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination in connection with his claim but feels it is not necessary. A VA examination is necessary when there is (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a disease, injury, or event during service; (3) some indication that the current disability may be related to the disease, injury, or event in service; and (4) the competent medical evidence of record is insufficient to decide the matter. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2006). Here, while there is evidence of a current bilateral eye condition, the evidence does not suggest it onset in service or is otherwise related thereto.

Accordingly, the Board finds that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not applicable as the evidence is not in approximate balance, and entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye condition is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

3. Entitlement to service connection for a left leg condition is denied.

4. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot condition is denied.

5. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot condition is denied.

6. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral toe condition is denied.

The Veteran is seeking to establish service connection for left leg, bilateral foot, and bilateral toe conditions. During the April 2024 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he served as an airborne trooper in service and probably twisted his feet a few times during jumps. Specifically, the Veteran recounted one jump where he landed at night in a cemetery dappled with boulders. He twisted his left foot and ankle and injured his knee during landing. The Veteran indicated that he was overcompensating for his left foot injury with his right knee and right foot.

The Veteran was afforded VA examinations for his claimed disabilities in May 2018. The examiner confirmed diagnoses of right knee meniscal tear and bilateral knee joint osteoarthritis, and bilateral metatarsalgia, bilateral hallux valgus, bilateral degenerative arthritis of the feet, and bilateral osteoarthritis of the feet with joint manifestations. The Veteran reported he was a paratrooper in service and then worked as a laborer for 12 years following service. He then worked in maintenance work, yard work, and "stuff like that." The Veteran indicated that the pain in his legs and feet began in the late 1960s.

Regarding the Veteran's bilateral foot condition, the examiner explained that hallux valgus was not acquired through parachute jumping and was usually genetic and familial. Additionally, metatarsalgia and toe deformities were not caused by parachute jumping and a parachutist's boots would mitigate injury to the metatarsals. The examiner noted that the Veteran' s service treatment records did not document a foot problem and the Veteran himself denied pain in the area. Further, there was no evidence of significant trauma to the foot to cause traumatic arthritis, and the Veteran's current arthritic changes were degenerative in nature. The examiner noted that the Veteran was first seen for leg and foot pain in 2008. A treatment record from the Bureau of Prisons indicated that his pain was the result of being pushed around in a shower. A prior complaint of foot pain was attributed to bunions. The examiner noted that the Veteran was engaged in heavy labor activity following service and did not report foot pain until the 1960s. For these reasons, the examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral foot condition was less likely than not related to service.

Regarding the Veteran's left leg condition, the examiner explained that the Veteran's current knee arthritis was mild to moderate and this extent of severity was not supported by a history of knee pain since the late 1960s. Therefore, the examiner opined that the Veteran's leg condition was less likely than not related to parachute jumping or any injury incurred in service.

Following a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's
examiner noted that the Veteran was engaged in heavy labor activity following service and did not report foot pain until the 1960s. For these reasons, the examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral foot condition was less likely than not related to service.

Following a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's left leg, bilateral foot, and bilateral toe conditions are related to service.

While the Veteran believes his claimed conditions are due to his active duty service, there is no evidence of record showing that he has the specialized medical education, training, and experience necessary to render a competent medical opinion as to etiology. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011).

The Board places greater probative weight on the May 2018 medical opinions that were rendered by a medical professional that reviewed the claims file, and interviewed and examined the Veteran.

Finally, to the extent that the Veteran asserts his right foot condition is secondary to his left leg condition, the Board finds this theory of entitlement is not currently available to the Veteran as the primary disability, a left leg condition, has herein been denied service connection.

Accordingly, the Board finds that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not applicable as the evidence is not in approximate balance, and entitlement to service connection for a left leg condition, a left foot condition, a right foot condition, and a bilateral toe condition is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

REASONS FOR REMAND

1. Entitlement to service connection for a right leg condition is remanded.

2. Entitlement to service connection for a spine condition is remanded.

Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claims so that he is afforded every possible consideration.

38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159.

The Board finds that the May 2018 VA medical opinions for the Veteran's right leg condition and spine condition are inadequate. Regarding the Veteran's right leg, the VA examiner noted diagnoses of right knee meniscal tear and bilateral knee osteoarthritis. While the examiner provided an opinion for bilateral knee osteoarthrosis, he failed to address the Veteran's right knee meniscal tear.

Regarding the Veteran's degenerative arthritis of the spine, the examiner explained that in a landmark study of the etiology of lumbar disease, axial load was not a cause. He noted "repetitive axial load in unusual positions over numerous short time frames was as it is in the AMAs Guides to the Evaluation of Causation." As such, the examiner opined that the Veteran's degenerative disease of the lumbar spine was less likely than not related to service. He noted that not all parachuters had degenerative disc disease or degenerative joint disease from parachuting and the most common cause was genetic. He concluded that for these reasons, "the overwhelming evidence mitigate[ed] against these injuries caused by service."

Regarding the Veteran's lumbosacral strain, the examiner opined that it was greater than 50 percent likely that, taking the Veteran at his word and given his parachutist qualifications, "he had or has" a lumbosacral strain that was caused by service. The examiner added that "at the present time, however, less than 10 percent of his pain would be reasonably attributed to this [pathology] if at all given the current extent of his degenerative processes."

The Board finds that the rationale supporting the examiner's opinions is inadequate. Although these opinions contained references to medical information, the examiner failed to apply the information to the specific facts of the Veteran's case or explain how it applied.

For these reasons, the Board finds that remand for addendum opinions is warranted.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the Veteran's right leg condition. The claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the examiner. The need for an examination of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the clinician selected to write the addendum opinion. The
current extent of his degenerative processes."

For these reasons, the Board finds that remand for addendum opinions is warranted.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

Is the Veteran's right leg condition, to include a meniscal tear and knee joint osteoarthritis, as least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) etiologically related to service? Please explain why or why not.

In forming his or her opinion, the examiner should address the Veteran's contentions regarding the onset and continuity of his right leg condition.

The examiner is advised that a negative opinion cannot be based solely on the absence of treatment in service.

In providing the requested opinion, consider the Veteran's description of the in-service injury and symptoms as well as post-service symptoms. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran's reported injury and symptoms in service and thereafter represented the onset of the current disability, this should be noted. Stated another way, do the Veteran's reports about the symptoms align with how the currently diagnosed disability is known to develop or are the Veteran's reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible?

A rationale must be provided in support of any opinion(s).

2. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the Veteran's spine condition. The claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the examiner. The need for an examination of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the clinician selected to write the addendum opinion. The examiner should respond to the following:

Is the Veteran's spine condition, to include lumbosacral strain and degenerative arthritis, as least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) etiologically related to service? Please explain why or why not.

In forming his or her opinion, the examiner should address the Veteran's contentions regarding the onset and continuity of his spine condition.

The examiner is advised that a negative opinion cannot be based solely on the absence of treatment in service.

A rationale must be provided in support of any opinion(s).

KRISTI L. GUNN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Silverblatt, L.

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer