13-15 066
13-15 066
| Board of Vet. App. | Jul 31, 2017Background
- Veteran served in the U.S. Air Force from July 1966 to May 1970 as a weapons system mechanic; reported regular exposure to aircraft/flightline noise and temporary hearing decreases during service.
- Service audiograms: entrance (1966) normal; separation (Mar 1970) showed threshold shifts but were not disabling for VA at that time.
- Post-service VA examination (Apr 2013) demonstrated current bilateral hearing loss meeting 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 criteria (e.g., 55–75 dB left, 60 dB right at 2000–4000 Hz).
- Three medical opinions in the record: Jan/Apr 2013 VA audiologist (opined less likely than not related; limited rationale) and Oct 2015 private audiologist (opined at least as likely as not related; detailed rationale and consideration of service exposure and lay statements).
- Board found the private audiologist’s opinion more probative, concluded evidence in equipoise on nexus, and granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss, resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service connection for bilateral hearing loss (nexus) | Veteran: hearing loss caused by in-service noise exposure (flightline/aircraft); lay statements and in-service threshold shifts support a nexus | VA/RO: separation audiogram showed non-disabling or normal hearing, so current loss not related to service; VA audiologist opined "less likely than not" without detailed rationale | Granted — Board found private audiologist’s detailed opinion persuasive, evidence in equipoise, resolved doubt for Veteran and awarded service connection |
| VA duty to notify/assist compliance | Veteran asserted claim with evidence submitted post-SOC; hearing held; additional development performed after remand | RO did not issue a Supplemental SOC after remand | No prejudicial error — because outcome is favorable (service connection granted), any omission did not harm Veteran; further explanation unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir.) (elements required to establish service connection)
- Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir.) (service-connection for chronic diseases and continuity of symptomatology)
- Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155 (Vet. App.) (audiometric criteria and measurement for hearing impairment)
- Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (Vet. App.) (standards for adequacy of VA medical opinions)
- Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (Vet. App.) (requirement to comply with Board remand directives)
- Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (Vet. App.) (prejudice analysis where VA notice/assistance duties are at issue)