Citation Nr: 1613144 Decision Date: 03/31/16 Archive Date: 04/07/16 DOCKET NO. 09-43 307 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle, Washington THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Sara Schinnerer, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1982 to February 2008. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2008 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Seattle, Washington (RO). REMAND The Veteran contends that his current bilateral hearing loss disorder is a result of exposure to acoustic trauma coincident to his duties as a submarine nuclear reactor operator, where he was consistently exposed to high noise levels in steam powered engine rooms, during active service. Another examination and opinion are needed to determine whether the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss disorder is related to service, as the June 2015 opinion is not adequate for adjudicative purposes. Specifically, such opinion was based in significant part on a determination that the Veteran had normal hearing at separation. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008); Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155 (1993). The requirements for service connection for hearing loss need not be shown by the results of audiometric testing during a claimant's period of active military service in order for service connection to be granted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2015). The regulation does not necessarily preclude service connection for hearing loss that first met the regulation's requirements after service. Hensley, 5 Vet. App. at 159. Moreover, the examiner did not address the Veteran's threshold shift upon separation from service, and he failed to discuss the Veteran's report of exposure to high noise levels in steam powered engine rooms while working as a submarine nuclear reactor operator during service. In this regard, the Veteran's service personnel records demonstrate that he was assigned to work in the aforementioned capacity aboard the USS RICHARD B. RUSSELL, the USS NEVADA, and the USS MICHIGAN, for several years. Accordingly, another medical examination and opinion are necessary. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Accordingly, the case is remanded for the following actions: 1. The RO must contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify or submit any additional pertinent evidence in support of his claim. Based on his response, the RO must attempt to procure copies of all records which have not previously been obtained from identified treatment sources. When requesting records not in the custody of a Federal department or agency, such as private treatment records, the RO must make an initial request for the records and at least one follow-up request if the records are not received or a response that records do not exist is not received. All attempts to secure this evidence must be documented in the claims file by the RO. If, after making reasonable efforts to obtain named records the RO is unable to secure same, the RO must notify the Veteran and (a) identify the specific records the RO is unable to obtain; (b) briefly explain the efforts that the RO made to obtain those records; (c) describe any further action to be taken by the RO with respect to the claim; and (d) that he is ultimately responsible for providing the evidence. The Veteran and his representative must then be given an opportunity to respond. 2. Thereafter, the Veteran must be afforded an appropriate VA examination to determine whether any currently or previously diagnosed hearing disorder is related to his military service. The electronic claims file must be made available to the examiner, and the examiner must specify in the report that these records have been reviewed. All pertinent symptomatology and findings must be reported in detail. Any diagnostic tests and studies must be accomplished. Following examination and review of the service and post-service medical records, the Veteran's military occupational specialty, and with consideration of the Veteran's statements and his history of inservice noise exposure, the examiner must state whether any degree of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to his military service, to include exposure to acoustic trauma. The RO must remind the examiner that although hearing loss may not be shown in service or at separation from service, service connection can still be established if the medical evidence shows that it is due to incidents during service. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the examiner must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. The examiner must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. The examiner must indicate whether an opinion could not be rendered due to limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular examiner. 3. The RO must notify the Veteran that it is his responsibility to report for any examination scheduled, and to cooperate in the development of the claim. The consequences for failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655 (2015). In the event that the Veteran does not report for any scheduled examination, documentation must be obtained and associated with the Veteran's claims file that shows that notice scheduling the examination was sent to his last known address. Documentation must be also be obtained and associated with the Veteran's claims file demonstrating any notice that was sent was returned as undeliverable. 4. The medical report must be reviewed to ensure that it is in complete compliance with the directives of this remand. If the report is deficient in any manner, the RO must implement corrective procedures. 5. After completing the above actions, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the paragraphs above, the claim must be readjudicated. If any benefit remains denied, a supplemental statement of the case must be provided to the Veteran and his representative. After the Veteran and his representative have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. No action is required by the Veteran until he receives further notice; however, he may present additional evidence or argument while the case is in remand status at the RO. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). _________________________________________________ JOY A. MCDONALD Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2014), 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) (2015).