BVA Case 13-2506: Back

Glover,through counsel,appeals a July 3, 2013,Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)decision in which the Board denied his claims for disability compensation for tinnitus,hearing loss,and chronic rhinosinusitis.

The parties asserted that remand was required because the Board erred in not addressing the competency and credibility of the appellant's lay statements when finding that in-service noise exposure could not be conceded,and because the Board did not adequately address whether VA satisfied its duty to assist the appellant in the development of his claim, namely in providing a medical examination or opinion,in light of that lay evidence.

Consequently, the examiner opined that the appellant's hearing loss was less likely than not related to service.

The examiner also found that the appellant's tinnitus was less likely than not related to service because there was no evidence of noise injury at separation in April 1964 and the appellant reported the onset of his tinnitus was more than fifteen years after separation from military service.

After a Supplemental Statement of the Case was issued on May 24,2012,the appellant, through counsel,responded,arguing that the audiological examination and opinion were inadequate because the examiner did not consider the totality of acoustic trauma the [v]eteran was subjected to during active service,nor did the examiner render an opinion based on the totality of evidence in the record.

The appellant further maintained that the regional office (RO)did not consider and address whether the [v]eteran's lay statements can be competent evidence of a nexus between his [hearing and tinnitus disabilities]and in-service noise exposure.

In the July 2013 decision on appeal,the Board found that,based on the April 2012 VA examination,the appellant had current hearing loss and tinnitus disabilities.

However,relying on the VA examiner's negative medical opinion,the Board concluded that there was no evidence to support a nexus between the present hearing loss and tinnitus and in-service exposure and denied his claims.