tinnitus Hearing Loss & Tinnitus N&m

[harleyman]

Has anyone had any luck with reopening a previously denied claim for hearing loss and tinnitus due to acoustic trauma. The claimant is highly probable for noise exposure due to MOS (Military Police).

Veteran filed a claim back in 2006 denied in 2008 for both HL and tinnitus, as the Veteran was honest and told the examiner he fired guns after his discharge from service. So of course VA blamed the hearing loss due to his after service recreational shooting of firearms.

Of course they ignored that he was an MP in Saigon during the TET offensive and exposed to loud blasts and gunfire during two tours in RVN.

Not sure if a private exam and DBQ or if just having VA do another exam based on the newer standard of MOS and presumed acoustic trauma is enough to have them give him a fair shot.

Any comments on how to have this re-opened and WIN is appreciated especially success stories, as he probably will only have one real shot at having this denial changed to a grant.

[Berta]

Harleyman,I bet his hearing has gotten worse since that last C & P.

I assume VA questioned his HL and tinnitus as due to his post service shooting, but I also assume his HL was at a compensable rating in the denial or is now.

Was the HL rating in question in the past denial?

:”Of course they ignored that he was an MP in Saigon during the TET offensive and exposed to loud blasts and gunfire during two tours in RVN. “

GEEEZ , do you mean they outright ignored that fact completely or simply mentioned it but disregarded it because they blamed his HL and tinnitus on post service causes?

I wonder how many VA raters really now what TET was like. It wasn't a duck shoot.

“recreational shooting of firearms “

I have done recreational shooting of firearms and have NO HL or tinnitus,. This is BS plain and simple.

Our member here:

got tinnitus SCed for acoustical trauma but was denied for the HL....figure that.

The link there from 68 mustang might help.

Personally I think a private hearing exam and IMO would be the very best bet here.

I even wonder if the VA calibrates their audio equipment properly.

I have seen here over the years where a few vets got far more favorable decibels etc reports from outside audiologists then from the VA.

If I was a vet I would go to Miracle Ear before I would allow VA to give me an audio exam.

I dont know how good Miracle Ear is but those people sure took the time to comment at the Federal Register some time ago, hoping the VA would provide them with fee basis or something...forget what....

The new acoutiscal trauma FL is good but is that good enough to re-open with??????

I will search the BVA site and see what I can find there.

[harleyman]

I know I can ask around at work on this, but to be honest the Hadit members usually cover ALL the bets for submitting for service connection and I don't know the people where this claim is located in Neveda, so I am hoping to cover it from all angles. I am thinking, like you he needs a new exam and a completed DBQ with opinion and rationale. I'll have to do some checking on private Audiologists that have submitted their findings to VA in the past.

I wish we had a website with names of doctors and clinics listed by state/location who are willing to do these exams as well as the physical exams for a "normal" fee scheduled on the DBQs. They could do th DBQ and then charge extra for the opinion, but just to fill out the DBQ fee schedule should only be the price of an extended office visit. I understand extensive time on IMO but pre-printed fill in the blank should be affordable to all Veterans who need an outside physician documenting illness or disability-imo

Thanks for the help I have spent some time researching here thiss morning and still looking for appeal grant based on acoustic trauma and N&M evidence.

added; the veteran is sending me a fax with the actual decision. It doesn't look good though as he read it to me and he pardon the expresssion had a case of jabberjaws while in for testing. I guess he thought the VA examiner was his buddy or something. I will post it on this thread when I get the fax today.

Edited August 17, 2013 by harleyman

[harleyman]

The new acoutiscal trauma FL is good but is that good enough to re-open with??????

Yes, if the claim for hearing loss was prior to the fast letter, than yes the request ro reopen due to acoustic trauma is suffcient to reopen the claim fro hearing loss and tinnitus. BUT, I do not trust the VAMC. Like you, I am skeptical of thier ability to calibrate and actually run thier machines properly. And after the fiasco of the other Veteran I am helping, I trust them even less now, than I did previosly. And then to ask them to review their own previous work, of couse they are going to say they did it right the first time. So, for sure an IMO and DBQ from private sector is needed. I would like to get the grant and avoid an appeal, as this is probably going to require an Appeal, unless I can get enough evidence in as N&M and the claim goes into equipoise. Then I think he might stand a chase. I understand his hearing is really BAD.

I look at these reports everyday from the VAMC, I just don't always trust the findings. I know the evidence is not reviewed unless it has been properly tabbed for the examiner by the RVSR VSR and then how through is it, when the examiner spends 10 mintues looking at the file just before your appointment? (statement is from my own personal C&P exams). There is no way they can review everything necessary in the short amount of time they are allowed with each Veteran. - IMO

[TiredCoastie]

I've been denied a couple of times on hearing loss but got tinnitus last time around.

Does the vet have any hearing tests from his time prior to or during the service? If so, that would be pretty clear evidence.

In my case, the denials have been due to my entry exam in the mid-80s against my exit exam in 2010 along with C&Ps right after I discharged. Had the examiners and raters looked at all my hearing test results throughout my years in service, the progression shows that my hearing loss did exacerbate while on active duty due to noise trauma. I submitted an FDC with a well developed DBQ from a top civilian ENT in my area (who had an Air Force O-4 interning with him at the time he filled out the form) but I didn't win last time around. This was probably my bad for not enclosing a well written statement explaining the data from my medical record, detailing that I'd been a competition pistol shooter while in uniform, etc.

If there are records from which to work, that could make a big difference. If not, perhaps Berta can find something that makes a firm link between combat in Vietnam or elsewhere with hearing loss. One would think that a more sympathetic C&P doc would have made the tie for the vet who's been denied. After all, he's a combat veteran. Hearing loss should go without saying. Is there a specific bias against the veteran when it comes to hearing loss?

[Berta]

Good point TiredCoastie

Anything to show HL prior to, within service, or post service before he started 'hunting' or whatever he did that VA used against him.

I found this case..not much help but

:“However, there is some question as to whether the Veteran's post-service occupation or recreational noise exposure played a role in the Veteran's hearing loss. At his personal hearing, the Veteran testified that his post-service hearing loss played a very insignificant role with regard to his hearing loss. The Veteran testified that, in addition to the tinnitus, he first noticed a hearing loss during service, but did not want to report that or seek treatment in service for fear of losing his unit. The Veteran also testified that although he spent many post-service years hunting, it did not involve firing his rifle very often, and that the noise did not compare to the acoustic trauma he sustained during service. Finally, the Veteran testified that by the time he began working as a concealed weapons instructor, he already had well-documented hearing loss, and he wore hearing protection.”
On Remand for:
“Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination to assess the current nature and etiology of bilateral hearing loss. The examiner must review the claims file and must note that review in the report. All indicated tests and studies should be performed, including audiometric testing, and all findings should be set forth in detail. The examiner should consider the Veteran's credible statements that he first noticed a hearing loss during service, and the fact that his discharge examination did not provide audiometric findings. Additionally, the examiner should reconcile the Veteran's reports that he first noticed hearing loss in service with the other evidence of record, including the previous VA examiner's opinion that the Veteran's hearing loss was first documented many years after service separation. Additionally, the examiner should indicate if the Veteran's pattern of hearing loss is consistent with a noise-induced hearing loss and the type of acoustic trauma described by the Veteran. The VA examiner should also be advised that service connection for hearing loss may be established even if it is first shown after service if all the evidence assembled establishes that it was incurred as a result of in-service acoustic trauma. The examiner is asked to opine whether it is at least as likely as not (a probability of 50 percent or greater) that current hearing loss began in or is related to service, to include excessive noise exposure during service. A complete rationale for all opinions is requested.”

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp12/Files4/1227817.txt

That is right. Very few recreational hunters take many shots during hunt season. Deer slugs are expensive.
When I hear too many shots going off during our hunting season,from the same locale, I know it is probably an inexperienced hunter.

I feel this above vet could succeed like yours could too, with an IMO from a real audiologist.

I see what you mean Harleyman about the N & M due to that fast letter.If he succeeds on the N & M claim, he might have basis for CUE against that older denial.

The Acoustal Trauma due to MOS Fast letter is FL 10-35 I think......

And we discussed this issue when it came out here at hadit.

Tired Coastie said:

"If not, perhaps Berta can find something that makes a firm link between combat in Vietnam or elsewhere with hearing loss. "

I hope I can, as it seems to me acoustic trauma from warfare is well beyond a comparison to mere recreational trauma.

If you left service however and became a rock guitarist, comparable to Jimmy Paige of Led Zeppelin (non vet, non American) I guess maybe that type of post service occupation would be hard to overcome for a HL inservice HL claim.

"One would think that a more sympathetic C&P doc would have made the tie for the vet who's been denied. "

the C & P has to be challenged if there is anything speculative about the opinion.

To me it is mere speculation to even assume post service noise would have a greater affect tham what went down at TET. Maybe the rater never heard of TET.

"After all, he's a combat veteran. Hearing loss should go without saying. Is there a specific bias against the veteran when it comes to hearing loss?"

I totally agree and I have been around long enough to recall a specific bias when it came to ALL combat vets whether HL or not.

I hope our OIF OEF vets are reading this stuff here as to how vets of past wars get treated by VA.If they are still inservice, reading hadit, they know they will need to keep in contact with their unit buddys, and make sure their discharge physical is correct and also not leave the Mil without a complete copy of their med records.

I dont mean just combat vets here..... I have seen HL claims denied for sailors and I bet there isnt a single place on a ship without a high level of noise.

If an IMO doc can give a full medical rationale ( and point out any deficiencies in the C & P) the vet can win.

I challenged a C & P the BVA had ordered on my AO DMII death claim. The BVA threw out the C & P opinion. I almost forgot---they did that to other C & P opinions I had too.

But for the DMII claim I had Dr. Bash's IM0s and a freeby from a former VA neuro..Unfortunately the VA completely ignored these opinions until the case went to the BVA. The DRO (on a double DRO review I got because I told them to CUE the first denial and they did,due to their ignoring the opinions,) actually told my former vet rep that she could not read the IMOs from Dr. Bash. The rep thought it was a big deal ,when he called me after the review, to tell me, although she said she couldnt read my IMOs he said....

.'Boy ....I got her to order another C & P exam!"

Big deal my butt... I asked the rep, if she couldn't read 2 professionally prepared medical opinions from Dr. Bash, how the hell is she going to be able to read another VA C & P doctor's opinion?

He suddenly had to get off the phone. Do these reps think we are dummies?

[Berta]

I owe myself a quarter!

From discussion at

Walker V Shinseki:

"This part of the Fed Cir decision
bothers me:

“and that Walker was exposed to
recreational noise by hunting game without use of hearing protection
“

That is BS. A qualified hunter only
takes a shot when the perfect situation presents itself. Ammo is expensive and not to be wasted.I used to
do the deer push every year . It is highly unusual for any hunter to
take multiple shots ,even over the course of the entire hunting
season.. Is hunting gunfire loud? Sure. It IS recreational noise.

But I highly doubt hunting itself would
cause serious hearing loss, otherwise all of the Colonist would have
been deaf."

I am serious as to using that part of the Fed Circuit opinion in Walker....basically I said in this link what I already said here.

The key is that NO protective gear was issued in Vietnam as far as I know of ,for acoustical trauma protection.

Not only would all of the Colonists been deaf, how about all those cowboys and Indians shooting for game out West before the conquest of the West of American began. Walker only hunted game.

I got a proposed reduction turned around once for my husband using the regs they used for the reduction and then plain old common sense.in the NOD I prepared for him.

I typed it just like I talk but did edit the bad words. It might be the same scenario this vet can use...common sense.

In Harleyman's vet case, I assume the recreational stuff was hunting or maybe being at a firing range.Also he had two tours in Vietnam, ie : double exposure.

I am thinking what actual stuff was he near (I assume he fired off an M 16 himself) such as RPGs ,bazookas etc. etc.

The noise levels in all sorts of military artillery has been tested and rated..I know there must be tests like that on the net.

That is why there is acoustical protective gear these days.

I also believe regular gunfire from guns like mine has been tested too for the extent of sound they make. This stuff can be compared.

Then again a lot rests on the actual last decision and how he can get around it now......

“without use of hearing protection”

I think all combat vets who were in theatre Vietnam, with( No issue of protective acoustical gear) can now get HL
Sced by using that exact statement, from the Fed Cir. opinion re: Walker, if the VA tries to deny
their HL claims!

Evidence can come from very serendipitous places.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Berta