BVA Case 24-1222: Back

At a VA audiological examination the following month,the examiner rendered a negative nexus opinion.

In an August 2020 remand,the Board found that the March 2018 VA examiner's rationale [wa]s conclusory and thus ordered VA to obtain an addendum medical opinion.

In an October 2020 VA medical opinion,the clinician opined that the appellant's hearing loss was less likely than not related to service;based on a review of the appellant's medical records and relevant medical literature,she explained as follows: There is no significant permanent shift in hearing thresholds beyond test variability from entrance to separation,which is objective evidence of no permanent auditory damage on active duty from conceded noise.

There must be a nexus of auditory damage to relate current hearing loss to military noise and not another etiology.

The examiner opined that the appellant's left ear hearing loss was less likely than not related to service.

There must be a nexus of auditory damage to relate current hearing loss to military noise exposure and not another etiology.

Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that the Board erred by relying on the June 2023 medical opinion, which he contends contains multiple discrepancies and inconsistencies.

Specifically,he avers that the examiner (1)reported,with regard to the appellant's right ear,that she could not opine as to etiology without resorting to speculation, yet she provided a negative nexus opinion;(2)rendered a negative nexus opinion as to the appellant's left ear using the same rationale, verbatim,as the rationale she provided for the appellant's right ear; (3)acknowledged that the appellant reported hearing loss while in service and conceded that he 3 Case:24-1222 Page: 4 of 8 Filed:06/05/2025 was exposed to noise;and (4)documented that she was unable to obtain/maintain seal for both of [the a]ppellant's ears for acoustic remittance, without explaining whether it affected the examination results or her opinion.