## Facts

- Julius E. Walker, a World War II Army Air Force pilot and flight instructor, sought VA disability compensation for bilateral hearing loss.
- He alleged his hearing loss began during service and continued thereafter, supported by sworn lay statements from his wife and son.
- His service medical records were unavailable due to destruction in a fire.
- A VA audiologist evaluated him using post-service information and family reports and opined the hearing loss was less likely than not primarily caused by military service, citing possible age-related causes and recreational noise exposure (hunting without hearing protection).
- The VA Regional Office denied the claim; the Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed, assigning greater weight to the audiologist’s opinion than to lay continuity evidence and finding the elements for service connection were not met.
- The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed; after Mr. Walker’s death, his son was substituted and appealed to the Federal Circuit on questions of law regarding 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).

## Issues

1. Whether 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b)’s chronicity/continuity-of-symptomatology route applies to any medically “chronic” condition or only to the “chronic diseases” enumerated in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a).
2. If § 3.303(b) is limited to § 3.309(a) diseases, whether the claimant was entitled to a remand for the Board to apply § 3.303(b) to his bilateral hearing-loss claim.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court’s judgment upholding the Board’s denial of service connection.
- The court held that 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) applies only to chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a).
- Because the claimed bilateral hearing loss was not treated as a § 3.309(a) chronic disease for § 3.303(b) purposes in this case, the claimant could not use continuity of symptomatology as an alternative path to service connection.
- The claimant was therefore not entitled to a remand for consideration under § 3.303(b) and remained subject to the ordinary service-connection framework requiring a nexus under § 3.303(a).

## Legal Principles

- Service connection generally requires (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation, and (3) a causal nexus between the disability and service under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).
- Section 3.303(b) provides an alternative evidentiary method—chronicity in service or continuity of symptomatology after service—only for the specific “chronic diseases” listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a).
- For diseases within § 3.309(a), satisfying § 3.303(b)’s continuity requirements can remove the need for separate medical evidence establishing a nexus.
- For conditions not within § 3.309(a), continuity evidence alone cannot invoke § 3.303(b); the claimant must establish service connection under § 3.303(a), including competent evidence of nexus.
- The Secretary’s interpretation limiting § 3.303(b) to § 3.309(a) diseases was accepted as consistent with the overall regulatory scheme.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit limited the continuity-of-symptomatology method in 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) to the chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), so a claimant with a non-listed condition cannot obtain service connection based solely on continuous symptoms and must prove the usual nexus under § 3.303(a).


Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013)