Citation Nr: 18142402 Decision Date: 10/15/18 Archive Date: 10/15/18 DOCKET NO. 16-06 501 DATE: October 15, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1957 to July 1960. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) the Regional Office (RO) in Los Angeles, California. In March 2018, the Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is of record. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The medical evidence of record shows a current diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and the Veteran reports onset of his hearing loss during service. Through various written statements and at the March 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he had extensive noise exposure from jet engine and flight line noise, and various weapon firings including rifles and machine guns without any hearing protection. At the Board hearing, the Veteran reported that he started experiencing difficulty hearing while in service. Specifically, he stated his speech discrimination ability was impaired throughout the time in service. Service personnel records show that his military occupation specialty was Armor Crewman. In connection with this claim, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in June 2015. The examiner noted that there was no medical evidence post military service and prior to a VA audiology testing in 2001 which would support the Veteran’s claim of hearing loss as a result of noise exposure during service. The examiner stated “[d]ue to lack of evidence, it is my opinion that current hearing loss is less likely than not related to military service.” However, the Board finds this opinion is inadequate for VA purposes. The VA examiner neglected to consider the Veteran’s statements concerning symptoms experienced in service and continuing after service. Lay testimony is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology and “may provide sufficient support for a claim of service connection.” Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307 (2007) (quoting Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). For example, the VA examiner could have addressed whether the Veteran’s claimed symptoms were consistent with his complaints through the years, or whether the complaints are consistent with the current disorder. Instead, the examiner determined, incorrectly, that lack of treatment records is the only evidence which can provide the basis for an opinion concerning etiology. Given the deficiencies in the June 2015 VA examination report the Board must remand this issue for another medical opinion. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file any updated records from the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Loma Linda, California dated from January 2016 to the present. All records and/or responses received should be associated with the claims file. 2. After completing the above action, forward the Veteran’s claims file to the June 2015 VA examiner or to an individual with the appropriate expertise, to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. After a thorough review of all evidence in the claims file, to include the Veteran’s service treatment records, the post-service treatment records, the Veteran’s testimony, and the lay statements of record, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s currently diagnosed bilateral hearing loss had onset in service or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s military service. The examiner is asked to fully consider the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and symptoms of the claimed disability. In rendering the requested opinion and rationale, the examiner must note that the fact that there is no documentation of treatment in the Veteran’s service treatment records is not necessarily fatal to the Veteran’s claim and cannot be the only basis by which to reject a possible nexus to service. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided. 3. After completing the above development, and any other development deemed necessary, readjudicate the claim on appeal taking into consideration any newly acquired evidence. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, provide an additional supplemental statement of the case to the Veteran and his representative, and return the appeal to the Board for appellate review, after the Veteran and his representative have had an adequate opportunity to respond. L. CHU Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. J. In, Counsel