Citation Nr: 18141342 Decision Date: 10/10/18 Archive Date: 10/10/18 DOCKET NO. 17-00 799 DATE: October 10, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from August 1962 to December 1963. 1. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran contends his bilateral hearing loss is attributable to acoustic trauma that occurred during active service. In support of his claim, the Veteran submitted articles suggesting a link between hearing loss and military service. See Third Party Correspondence September 2018. In September 2016, the VA examiner opined that it is less likely as not that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is caused by or a result of military noise exposure. However, the examiner’s opinion did not reflect consideration of the medical articles submitted by the Veteran, which suggest a link between hearing loss and military service. Furthermore, the VA examiner cited to the Veteran’s normal hearing at separation as the rationale for finding no evidence to support a link to military noise exposure. According to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, service connection for a current hearing disability is not precluded where hearing was within normal limits at separation. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159-60 (1993). As such, this opinion is inadequate and a remand for a more complete VA opinion is necessary. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Acquire updated VA and/or private treatment records to the extent possible. If such records are unavailable, the Veteran’s claim file must be clearly documented to that effect and the Veteran notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. Obtain an addendum medical opinion from a medical professional with appropriate expertise. The examiner should review the Veteran’s claims file, including a copy of this remand. If the examiner determines that an opinion cannot be provided without an examination, the Veteran should be scheduled for one. Based on a review of the record, and a new examination if necessary, the examiner must address the following: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is related to his active service, or is caused by or aggravated by military service. 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 certain conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of such a conclusion as it is to find against it. In providing the above opinions, the examiner must address relevance of the following medical articles submitted by the Veteran: “Delayed Effects of Noise on the Ear”; “Noise and Military Service: Implications for Hearing Loss and Tinnitus.” Additionally, the examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent and credible to report his symptoms from his in-service injury to the present. The examiner must specifically consider and discuss any lay statements of record. 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 must include a complete rationale for all opinions expressed and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved, to include the medical articles listed above. If the medical professional cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered. In so doing, the medical professional shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). 3. Finally, readjudicate the appeal. If the service connection sought for bilateral hearing loss remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case and return the case to the Board. G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. A. Prinsen, Associate Counsel