Citation Nr: 1335385 Decision Date: 11/04/13 Archive Date: 11/13/13 DOCKET NO. 10-42 005 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Texas Veterans Commission WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran, his spouse, J. P, and M. P. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Osegueda, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from May 1960 to June 1963. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. In March 2012, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at the RO. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the record. In addition to the paper claims file, there are Virtual VA and Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) paperless files associated with the Veteran's case. A review of the documents in the Virtual VA paperless claims file reveals documents that are either duplicative of the evidence in the paper claims file or irrelevant to the issue on appeal. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The law provides that the VA shall make reasonable efforts to notify a claimant of the evidence necessary to substantiate a claim and requires the VA to assist a claimant in obtaining that evidence. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2012). Such assistance includes providing the claimant a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on a claim. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2012). The Veteran contends that he has bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus due to noise exposure during his military service. His DD 214 shows that his military occupational specialty was boilerhouse foreman. During the September 2010 Decision Review Officer (DRO) hearing and the March 2012 Travel Board hearing, he testified that he served as a gunner on an aircraft carrier before becoming a boilerhouse foreman. The Veteran is also considered competent to relate a history of noise exposure during service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2) (2012). The Veteran was afforded a VA audiology examination in February 2010 in connection with his claims. The examiner diagnosed him with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and bilateral recurrent tinnitus. The examiner reported that she was unable to provide an opinion regarding service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus because it would be "based on speculation due to lack of audiograms to review at entrance or exit." It appears that the VA examiner based her lack of an opinion on the absence of medical evidence of hearing loss and tinnitus in service. Notably, the absence of in-service evidence of a hearing disability during service (i.e., one meeting the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.385) is not always fatal to a service connection claim. See Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). Evidence of a current hearing loss disability and a medically sound basis for attributing that disability to service may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection for hearing loss where there is credible evidence of acoustic trauma due to significant noise exposure in service, post-service audiometric findings meeting the regulatory requirements for hearing loss disability for VA purposes, and a medically sound basis upon which to attribute the post- service findings to the injury in service (as opposed to intercurrent causes). See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that a clarifying medical opinion is necessary for the purpose of determining the nature and etiology of any hearing loss that may be present. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO/AMC should ascertain if the Veteran received any VA, non-VA, or other medical treatment that is not evidenced by the current record, to specifically include, but not limited to, any VA treatment records not associated with the record. The RO/AMC should provide the Veteran with authorization forms for the release of any identified outstanding private treatment records. The RO/AMC should then obtain these records, as well as any other pertinent records, and associate them with the claims folder. If VA is unsuccessful in obtaining any medical records identified by the Veteran, it should inform him and provide him an opportunity to submit copies of the outstanding medical records. 2. After completion of the foregoing development, the RO/AMC should refer the Veteran's claims file to the February 2010 VA examiner or, if she is unavailable, to another suitably qualified VA examiner for a clarifying opinion as to the nature and etiology of any bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus that may be present. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file, including the Veteran's service treatment records, post-service medical records, and the Veteran's own assertions. It should be noted that the absence of in-service evidence of a hearing disability during service is not always fatal to a service connection claim. Evidence of a current hearing loss disability and a medically sound basis for attributing that disability to service may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection for hearing loss where there is credible evidence of acoustic trauma due to significant noise exposure in service, post-service audiometric findings meeting the regulatory requirements for hearing loss disability for VA purposes, and a medically sound basis upon which to attribute the post-service findings to the injury in service. The Veteran has contended that he had noise exposure in service. It should be noted that he is competent to attest to factual matters of which he had first-hand knowledge. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the appellant, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran currently has bilateral hearing loss and/or tinnitus that manifested in service or that is otherwise causally or etiologically related to his military service, including noise exposure. (The term "at least as likely as not" does not mean within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of conclusion as it is to find against it.) In rendering the opinion, the examiner should discuss medically known or theoretical causes of hearing loss and tinnitus and describe how hearing loss and tinnitus which result from noise exposure generally present or develop in most cases, as distinguished from how hearing loss and tinnitus develop from other causes, in determining the likelihood that current hearing loss and tinnitus were caused by noise exposure in service as opposed to some other cause. A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. Because it is important "that each disability be viewed in relation to its history[,]" 38 C.F.R. § 4.1, copies of all pertinent records in the Veteran's claims file, or in the alternative, the claims file, must be made available to the examiner for review. 3. When the development requested has been completed, the case should be reviewed by the RO/AMC on the basis of additional evidence. If the benefits sought are not granted, the Veteran should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ CHERYL L. MASON Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).