EAR IMPAIRMENT OF

TIFFANY HANSON · 2026 · Case ID: A26040096

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served from October 1983 to October 1987, appeals the denial of service connection for right ear hearing loss and seeks service connection for left ear hearing loss. The Board found that the veteran has a current diagnosis of left ear hearing loss and that his MOS as a Mechanic concedes in-service noise exposure, satisfying the first two elements for service connection. Regarding the nexus for left ear hearing loss, the Board gave great probative weight to a September 2016 Bilateral Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Disability Benefits Questionnaire, which noted a threshold shift in the left ear compared to the enlistment audiogram and suggested a nexus to noise exposure. The Board found the September 2019 VA examiner's negative opinion, which relied on normal hearing post-service and medical literature, carried little probative weight due to insufficient rationale. Resolving doubt in the veteran's favor, the Board granted service connection for left ear hearing loss. For right ear hearing loss, the Board found the evidence did not establish a current diagnosis meeting VA criteria, nor did it show a nexus to service, leading to the denial of that claim.

Rationale

Current diagnosis of left ear hearing loss established.; In-service noise exposure conceded due to MOS.; September 2016 DBQ noted threshold shift and potential noise injury, given great probative weight.; September 2019 VA examiner's negative opinion found to have little probative weight.; Benefit of the doubt resolved in veteran's favor.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

201207-125892

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040096
Decision Date: 04/29/26 Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 201207-125892
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss is GRANTED.

Entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss is DENIED.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The most probative evidence of record shows that the Veteran's left ear hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to in-service noise exposure.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had right ear hearing loss at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.?

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for left ear hearing loss are met. 38?U.S.C. §§?1110, 1131, 5107; 38?C.F.R. §§?3.102, 3.303.?

2. The criteria for service connection for right ear hearing loss are not met. 38?U.S.C. §§?1110, 1131, 5107; 38?C.F.R. §§?3.102, 3.303.?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY?

The Veteran served on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States from October 1983 to October 1987.

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2019 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2019, the Appellant submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested review of a September 2019 decision. In December 2019, the RO issued the HLR decision on appeal, which considered the evidence of record at the time of the prior September 2019 decision.

In the December 2020 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Appellant elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on July 19, 2024. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2019 decision on appeal, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801.

If the Appellant would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Appellant may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim[s], considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this Decision, there is no requirement that every piece of evidence submitted by the Veteran or obtained on his behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board's analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. See Gonzales v. West,?218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81?(Fed. Cir. 2000); Timberlake v. Gober,?14?Vet. App.?122, 128-130?(2000).

Bilateral Hearing Loss

Legal Criteria

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.?38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107;?38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for direct service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi,?381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67
?Vet. App.?122, 128-130?(2000).

Bilateral Hearing Loss

Legal Criteria

For the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, 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.?

The Board is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claims or is in approximate balance, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the evidence is persuasively against the claims, in which case the claims are denied.?38 U.S.C. § 5107(b);?38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough,?21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (2021).?

The question for the Board is whether the Appellant has a current disability that began during service or is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.?

Material Facts

On the authorized audiological evaluation in April 1983, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows:

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 0 0 0 0 0

LEFT 0 0 0 0 0

On the authorized audiological evaluation in September 1987, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows:

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 5 10 5 5 5

LEFT 15 10 15 15 5

On the authorized audiological evaluation in March 1992, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows:

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 0 0 0 0 5

LEFT 5 0 0 0 0

On the authorized audiological evaluation in June 2001, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows:

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 0 0 0 0 0

LEFT 0 0 0 10 0

On the authorized audiological evaluation in September 2019, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows:

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 10 10 10 20 35

LEFT 10 10 15 40 45

Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 96 percent in the right ear and of 94 percent in the left ear.

The September 2019 VA examiner noted a diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. It was opined that the left ear hearing loss was less likely than not the result of active service. In support of this opinion, the examiner highlighted normal hearing on the Appellant's September 1987 separation from service examination. Thereafter, audiological evaluations in March 1992, June 2000, and June 2001 also revealed hearing within normal limits. It was emphasized that there was insufficient scientific evidence to conclude that permanent hearing loss, directly attributable to noise exposure, will develop long after noise exposure. Medical literature was provided to support this conclusion.

At the July 2024 Board hearing, the Appellant testified to experiencing tinnitus in
.

At the July 2024 Board hearing, the Appellant testified to experiencing tinnitus in service, but did not notice hearing loss until a few years after that time. The Appellant also stated that he experiences slight noise exposure at his current job but wears hearing protection.

Analysis - Left Ear Hearing Loss

The Veteran asserts that entitlement to left ear hearing loss is warranted because the claimed disability is the result of in-service noise exposure.

The Board finds that the first and second elements of a service connection claim have been satisfied. The September 2019 rating decision's favorable findings included that the Veteran has a current disability of left ear hearing loss. Additionally, the AOJ found that the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) of Mechanic concedes military noise exposure. The Board is bound by these favorable findings. Therefore, the first and second elements of a service connection claim have been met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).

Regarding the third element for service connection, a nexus between the diagnosis of left ear hearing loss and the in-service exposure to hazardous noise, there is evidence weighing in favor and against the claim.

In favor of the claim is a September 2016 Bilateral Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Disability Benefits Questionnaire. Though audiological testing was not completed at this examination (the examination was to determine an etiology for the Veteran's claimed tinnitus), an examiner noted that the separation from service audiogram conducted in September 1987 showed significant threshold shifts as compared to the enlistment audiogram conducted in November 1983. The examiner further stated that the threshold shift may be viewed as objective evidence of noise injury, creating a nexus between the claimed condition (tinnitus) and in-service noise exposure. The Board affords great probative weight to this medical opinion.

Weighing against the claim is the September 2019 medical opinion. Here, a VA examiner pointed out that following separation from service, the Appellant's audiograms exhibited hearing within normal limits. The VA examiner went on to provide medical literature that does not support delayed hearing loss following in-service hazardous noise exposure. As a result, a negative nexus opinion was provided. The Board notes, however, that it is an insufficient rationale for a negative nexus opinion merely to state that the Veteran's hearing was within normal limits during service. In such a case, service connection is not precluded if there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a relationship between the appellant's service and a current disability which satisfies 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). Therefore, the Board finds this opinion carries little probative weight.

As such, and resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds the most probative evidence of record shows that the Veteran's left ear hearing loss is related to his active-duty service. Accordingly, the claim for service connection for left ear hearing loss is granted.

Analysis - Right Ear Hearing Loss

The Veteran asserts that entitlement to right ear hearing loss is warranted because the claimed disability is the result of in-service noise exposure. The RO has acknowledged the Appellant's military occupational specialty had a high probability for hazardous noise exposure.

The evidence of record does not support a claim of entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing.? The evidence of record does not show that the Appellant has a current diagnosis of right ear hearing loss for VA purposes or has had one at any point during the pendency of this appeal. Despite the September 2019 VA examiner's finding of a diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, the audiogram did not show at least three auditory thresholds that were 26 decibels or greater. Additionally, right ear speech recognition scores did not reveal results that were less than 94 percent.

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

The Board does not doubt the sincerity of the Appellant's belief that he has right ear hearing loss but does not believe the Appellant is competent to provide a diagnosis regarding this issue because it requires specialized medical education and knowledge of body systems to determine causation here. It is medically complex.?Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Appellant because the record does not
during the pendency of this appeal. Despite the September 2019 VA examiner's finding of a diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, the audiogram did not show at least three auditory thresholds that were 26 decibels or greater. Additionally, right ear speech recognition scores did not reveal results that were less than 94 percent.

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

The Board does not doubt the sincerity of the Appellant's belief that he has right ear hearing loss but does not believe the Appellant is competent to provide a diagnosis regarding this issue because it requires specialized medical education and knowledge of body systems to determine causation here. It is medically complex.?Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Appellant because the record does not show that the Appellant has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination.?Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 n.4;?see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the medical evidence of record. For these reasons, the appeal is denied.??

TIFFANY HANSON

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board K. Cross, 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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer