13-340 97
13-340 97
| Board of Vet. App. | Sep 18, 2017Background
- Veteran served on active duty from Nov 1963 to Sep 1966; RO decisions from 2010 and 2013; Board hearing Oct 2016.
- Claims: service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and a back disability (degenerative disc disease/spondylolisthesis/spondylolysis).
- Military entrance and separation audiograms showed normal hearing with only minimal threshold shifts; July 2013 VA exam documented compensable hearing loss but opined it was less likely than not related to service.
- Veteran reported in-service loud noise exposure (flightline, firearms) and post-service occupational noise (timber work with hearing protection) and subjective onset of tinnitus during service.
- Back condition: current diagnoses (degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, spondylolysis) found to be related to service based on the record and medical evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service connection — bilateral hearing loss | Hearing loss caused by in-service noise exposure; cannot be precluded because separation audiogram was within normal limits | Contemporaneous audiograms show normal hearing at separation; VA exam found no nexus to service | Denied — preponderance against nexus; lay assertions insufficient |
| Service connection — tinnitus | Tinnitus began in service and persisted since then | VA conceded tinnitus began in service; evidence supports nexus | Granted — service-connected |
| Service connection — back disability (DDD/spondylolisthesis/spondylolysis) | Back disability is related to service events/conditions | VA obtained records and exam; evidence supports service relation | Granted — service-connected |
Key Cases Cited
- Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (lay observation of hearing acuity can be competent evidence)
- Curry v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 59 (contemporaneous medical evidence has greater probative value than later history)
- Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87 (absence of measurable disability at separation does not automatically bar service connection)
- Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456 (limits on lay testimony for complex medical nexus questions)
- Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (requirements for adequacy of VA examination)
- Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (VCAA notice requirements)
- Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (VCAA notice and development duties)