Citation Nr: 1751500 Decision Date: 11/09/17 Archive Date: 11/17/17 DOCKET NO. 17-19 719 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Russell Veldenz, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on a period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from November 1962 to May 1963. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a March 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2017). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2014). The appeal is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND While the Board regrets the further delay, remand is required to comply with VA's duty to assist the Veteran. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2017). In a February 2017 VA examination, the examiner did not explain how the normal in-service test results at separation precluded service connection for a hearing loss that had either a sudden onset or gradually progressed over the years. Importantly, the Board notes that the absence of in-service evidence of a hearing loss 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). The existence of 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 may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection for hearing loss. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). The Board thus finds the VA examination does not contain sufficient detail for consideration of the Veteran's claim and a new VA examination must be provided to the Veteran. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007) (holding that when VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiology examination to determine the nature and etiology of any current hearing loss. The claims file should be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. If the Maryland CNC test (speech discrimination testing) cannot be performed, the examiner must specify why testing cannot be performed. It is noted that the Veteran is competent to attest to observable symptomatology such as difficulty hearing. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. The examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that any current hearing loss is causally related to the Veteran's military service, including noise exposure therein. Of note, the Veteran provided evidence of noise exposure from firearms while serving as an infantryman. The examiner should explain why the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss is or is not merely a delayed response to his in-service noise exposure. The examiner should explain the reasoning for any opinion provided. If the examiner relies on the audiometric findings at separation in offering a negative opinion, the medical significance of such findings should be addressed as the Board is precluded from making medical findings. 2. After the development requested is completed, readjudicate the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss. If any benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case and a reasonable period to respond, and then return the case to the Board. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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 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 2014). _________________________________________________ Nathan Kroes Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2014), only a decision of the Board 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) (2017).