12-21 034
12-21 034
| Board of Vet. App. | Aug 31, 2016Background
- Veteran served in U.S. Army (Nov 1972–Oct 1974) as a cannon crewmember; service records confirm MOS with high probability of hazardous noise exposure.
- Veteran reports intermittent acute hearing symptoms during service and progressive hearing decline noticed ~1979–1980; denies post-service hazardous noise exposure.
- Service audiograms at entry and separation did not meet VA hearing-loss thresholds; post-service audiometry (Feb 2011 VA exam; Aug 2005 private) shows bilateral sensorineural hearing loss meeting 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 criteria.
- Veteran is already service‑connected for tinnitus; VA examiners have linked tinnitus to in‑service noise but at least two VA audiology opinions found no medical nexus for hearing loss due to lack of in‑service threshold shifts.
- Veteran’s representative submitted an Institute of Medicine treatise (May 2016) supporting possible delayed manifestation of noise-induced hearing loss.
- Board resolved reasonable doubt in Veteran’s favor, finding competent lay and circumstantial evidence of nexus and granting service connection for bilateral hearing loss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service connection for bilateral hearing loss | In‑service hazardous noise (cannon crewmember), delayed onset of hearing loss (~5–6 yrs post‑service), tinnitus linked to same acoustic trauma | No in‑service audiometric evidence of hearing loss or significant threshold shifts; VA examiners opined nexus not established | Granted: Board found current disability, in‑service noise exposure, no post‑service cause, and plausible nexus (resolving doubt for Veteran) |
Key Cases Cited
- Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir.) (service‑connection principles for post‑service diagnoses)
- Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir.) (elements for service connection and nexus requirement)
- Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir.) (lay evidence may establish diagnosis or nexus in some instances)
- Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir.) (competence of lay evidence for observable conditions)
- Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir.) (application of chronic disease presumption under VA regs)
- Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (Vet. App.) (benefit‑of‑the‑doubt/approximate balance rule)
- Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 155 (Vet. App.) (post‑service onset of hearing loss can be service‑connected with nexus)
- Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir.) (factfinder’s discretion to draw inferences from circumstantial evidence)