Citation Nr: 18147396 Decision Date: 11/05/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 16-36 920 DATE: November 5, 2018 REMANDED Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from August 1982 to August 2002 as aircraft maintenance technician. He is seeking service connection for bilateral hearing loss. Service records confirm that he was exposed to hazardous noise during his active service. The Veteran was provided a VA examination in October 2012 and the audio testing shows the following: Right Ear Left Ear Hz 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 dB 50 40 30 30 35 25 30 30 40 40 The above audio test results indicate that the Veteran has a hearing loss disability in both ears for VA purposes as the auditory threshold at frequencies 500 Hertz and 1000 Hertz are 40 decibels or greater in the right ear; and auditory threshold at frequencies 3000 Hertz and 4000 Hertz are 40 decibels in the left ear. 38 C.F.R.§3.385. However, the VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s hearing loss was due to military noise exposure, reasoning that the military hearing tests found in the veteran’s claims folder (dated 1/15/85, 11/15/85, 1/15/86, 10/5/87, 7/22/88, 8/23/91, 12/9/92, 1/9/95, 11/28/95) revealed hearing within normal limits. The examiner acknowledged that a review of the audiometric testing during the Veteran’s military career showed slight fluctuations in hearing bilaterally, but the examiner found that the only persistent difference evident in comparing the earliest audio to the latest audio was a small (10 dB HL) decrease at 1000 Hz for the right ear. The examiner found that this change should not be considered of clinical significance over a10-year period, and as it was only noted at 1000 Hz, it was likely that the change was related to aging, rather to the adverse effects of noise, which were most evident in high frequency changes. The examiner explained that there was no evidence of persistent changes in hearing sensitivity in the high frequencies, which are most vulnerable to the effects of hazardous noise. The Board appreciates this opinion, but finds that several pieces of evidence should be considered by a medical professional prior to the Board rendering a decision in this case. First, Service Treatment Records (STRs) show that in June 2002 (two months before the Veteran separated from service), a medical officer noted that the Veteran had a history of hearing loss, “likely work related” in that he had worked around planes during his entire military career. Second, while the VA examiner suggested that there was no significant shift in the Veteran’s hearing acuity, the Board notes that when comparing audiometric testing in December 2000 with audiometric testing in January 1982 (enlistment examination) there appears to be some shift in hearing acuities in both ears. The results of the two audiometric tests are as follows: Right Ear Left Ear Hz 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 12/2000 20 10 0 15 5 10 15 0 20 15 1/1982 20 15 0 5 5 10 10 0 0 0 Therefore, the matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a medical opinion to address the etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. If a physical examination is needed to address the Board’s questions, one should be scheduled. The examiner should answer the following questions: (Continued on the next page)   a. Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s hearing loss in either ear either began during or was otherwise caused by his 20 years of honorable military service working as an aircraft maintenance technician? Why or why not? In doing so, the examiner should address the medical opinion given by the medical officer in June 2002 indicating that the Veteran had a history of hearing loss which was likely related to his service, and any audio testing results after November 1995 contained in STRs (to include December 2000 testing results). MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Q. Wang, Associate Counsel