Click To Ask Your VA Claims Question
Read Disability Claims Articles
View All Forums | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Search | Rules
- 0
tinnitus Bva Case_bilateral Tinnitus
Rate this question
Click To Ask Your VA Claims Question
Read Disability Claims Articles
View All Forums | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Search | Rules
Rate this question
Question
Guest allanopie
BVA9403998
DOCKET NO. 91-43 070 ) DATE
)
)
)
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral defective
hearing.
2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus.
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
L. Gottfried, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from June 1975 to June 1979.
This case came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter the
Board) on appeal from rating decisions from the Department of
Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA), Salt Lake City, Utah, Regional
Office (hereinafter RO). The RO denied service connection for
hearing loss and tinnitus in September 1989. The notice of
disagreement was received in April 1990. A statement of the case was
issued in May 1990. A substantive appeal was received in June 1990.
The RO continued to deny service connection for tinnitus and hearing
loss in a rating decision of July 1991. A supplemental statement of
the case was issued in July 1991. The case was received and docketed
at the Board in September 1991.
The Board remanded the case for development in May 1992. The RO
continued to deny service connection for bilateral hearing loss and
tinnitus in a rating decision of February 1993. A supplemental
statement of the case was issued in March 1993. The case was
received and docketed at the Board in May 1993.
An additional issue of entitlement to service connection for status
post bilateral mandibular osteotomies and temporomandibular joint
dysfunction was before the Board at the time of the May 1992 remand.
The RO granted service connection in the rating decision of February
1993. The disorder is currently classified as part of the veteran's
service-connected disorder classified as ankylosing
spondylitis/rheumatoid arthritis with costochondritis, arthralgia and
discomfort involving the feet and hands, and status post bilateral
mandibular osteotomies and temporomandibular joint dysfunction. That
issue is no longer before the Board for appellate review.
In an August 1993 letter, copies of the medical literature cited in
this decision were furnished to the veteran in accordance with
Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 119 (1993). The veteran informed the
Board in December 1993 that he had no further evidence to submit and
that he desired the Board to proceed with his appeal.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL
The veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus
relate to his exposure to loud noises that were present during
service when he worked in kitchens, to include kitchens near flight
lines, and to head trauma incurred during service. He has also
contended that his hearing loss and tinnitus were caused by multiple
medications used to treat his ankylosing spondylitis.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
In accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991),
following review and consideration of all evidence and material of
record in the veteran's claims file, and for the following reasons
and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the evidence supports
the granting of service connection for bilateral defective hearing
and bilateral tinnitus.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The veteran's bilateral hearing loss shown at service separation
led to his current bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.
2. The veteran's bilateral tinnitus cannot reasonably be
disassociated from the pathology underlying the bilateral
sensorineural hearing loss that is shown to have had its onset during
service.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Bilateral defective hearing was incurred during service.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1131, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (1993).
2. Bilateral tinnitus is proximately due to and the result of
service-connected bilateral defective hearing. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107
(West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a) (1993).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) have been met, in that the
veteran's claims are well grounded and adequately developed.
I. Bilateral Defective Hearing
Initially, it should be noted that service connection may be granted
for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or
aggravated by peacetime service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131 (West 1991).
Where a veteran served 90 days or more during a period of war or
during peacetime service after December 31, 1946, and sensorineural
hearing loss becomes manifest to a degree of 10 percent within one
year from date of termination of such service, such disease shall be
presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no
evidence of the disease during the period of service. This
presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence to the contrary.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309
(1993). Service connection for impaired hearing shall not be
established when hearing status meets pure tone and speech
recognition criteria. Hearing status shall not be considered service
connected when the thresholds for the frequencies of 500, 1,000,
2,000, 3,000 and 4,000 hertz are all less than 40 decibels; the
thresholds for at least three of these frequencies are 25 decibels or
less and speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are
94 percent or better. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (1993).
The veteran's statements must be reviewed in relation to all of the
evidence of record, to include the service and post service medical
records. Audiometric testing on the service enlistment examination
of January 1975 did not result in any threshold levels greater than
10. The veteran was tested at the 500, 1,000, 2,000 and 4,000 hertz
levels, but not at higher hertz levels.
The service clinical records show no complaints, abnormal findings or
diagnoses referable to hearing loss. There was no mention of head
trauma. Although the veteran denied having had hearing loss on the
history report pertaining to his separation examination of February
1979, at which time the clinical examination of the ears showed no
abnormalities, audiometric testing revealed thresholds of 40 and 30
for the right and left ears, respectively, at 6,000 hertz. Bilateral
threshold levels through 4,000 hertz were all shown to be 10 or less.
Although the hearing loss shown on the separation examination did not
meet the criteria of 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, the loss must be reviewed in
relation to the post service evidence of record. This is
particularly true since mild hearing loss is indicated by a threshold
of 20-40 decibels (includes the thresholds tested at the time of the
veteran's separation examination). R. K. Jackler, M.D., and M. J.
Kaplan, M.D., Ear, Nose & Throat in Current Medical Diagnosis &
Treatment, 146-147 (S. A. Schroeder, M.D., L. M. Tierney, Jr., M.D.,
S. J. McPhee, M.D., M. A. Papadakis, M.D., and M. A. Krupp, M.D.,
eds. 1992).
The post service record shows that the veteran initially referred to
hearing loss after service in 1988 when he claimed service
connection. His records of service support his statement that he
worked in kitchens near flight lines in service where he was exposed
to high levels of noise over a prolonged period of time. There was
nothing in the record to indicate that he was exposed to significant
or prolonged high levels of noise after service. Sensorineural
hearing loss was found on a VA examination in August 1992. There are
no records of any earlier post service audiometric testing. On that
examination the veteran related his hearing difficulties to prolonged
exposure to noises from kettles and pots while working in kitchens
during service, to include work in kitchens near flight lines. The
examiner stated in August 1992 that the hearing loss was most
compatible with exposure to loud noises.
In view of the hearing loss shown at the time of the separation
examination, the lack of any indication from the record of any
prolonged or significant exposure to noises after service, the nature
of the hearing loss shown in August 1992 that the examiner felt was
compatible with exposure to loud noises, and the history supplied by
the veteran of hearing problems in service, the Board believes a
reasonable basis exists to find that the current bilateral defective
hearing began during service. Moreover, the August 1992 test results
showed that the current hearing loss meets the criteria of 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.385.
Since the Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral defective
hearing was incurred during service, the question of whether the
veteran has bilateral defective hearing that is proximately due to or
the result of service-connected disability has become moot.
II. Bilateral Tinnitus
The criteria regarding the establishment of service connection
include provisions for the granting of service connection for a
disability which is found to be proximately due to or the result of a
service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.301(a) (1993).
The record in this case shows that the veteran's sensorineural
hearing loss began during service. He was exposed to noises during
his years of service. It is known that chronic tinnitus may be
etiologically related to sensorineural hearing loss. R. Baloh, M.D.,
The Special Senses in 2 Cecil Textbook of Medicine, 2108-2109 (J. B.
Wingaarden, M.D., L. H. Smith, Jr., M.D., J. C. Bennett, M.D., eds.
19th ed. 1992). It would be reasonable in this case to find that the
pathology underlying the current tinnitus cannot be clearly
disassociated from the veteran's service-connected bilateral
sensorineural hearing loss.
Since the Board has determined that service connection should be
granted for bilateral tinnitus on the basis that the disorder was
secondary to his service-connected bilateral sensorineural hearing
loss, the question of whether tinnitus was caused by medications used
to treat a service-connected disorder has become moot.
ORDER
Service connection for bilateral defective hearing is granted.
Service connection for bilateral tinnitus is granted.
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a
decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the
complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the
United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date
of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of
Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed
with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18,
1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402
(1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision
constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which
you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal
by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
http://www.va.gov/vetapp/files1/9403998.txt
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
Popular Days
Jun 14
2
Top Posters For This Question
john999 1 post
Popular Days
Jun 14 2006
2 posts
1 answer to this question
Recommended Posts