Citation Nr: 18149692
Decision Date: 11/13/18	Archive Date: 11/13/18

DOCKET NO. 16-46 278
DATE:	November 13, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from January 1967 to January 1971.
These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus is remanded.
The Veteran contends that his current diagnosed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his active duty service. Specifically, the Veteran posits that his duties subjected him to noise from aircraft engines. Additionally, the Veteran has argued that his exposure to jet fuel contributed to his current diagnosed disabilities; and he has submitted medical literature to support his contention. See Form 9 and Correspondence, dated September 13, 2016.
The Veteran was afforded a VA medical opinion in February 2016. The examiner indicated that he reviewed the Veteran’s claims file, but did not conduct an in-person examination. Ultimately, the examiner opined that both the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were less likely than not related to his active service. With regards to bilateral hearing loss, the examiner reasoned that the Veteran did not complain of hearing loss in service, there was no significant shift in his hearing during service, and that a prolonged delay in the onset of noise-induced hearing loss was unlikely. As to tinnitus, the examiner reasoned that there was no shift in hearing during service, and that it was likely related to the post-military events that caused the Veteran’s current hearing loss. See C&P Exam, dated February 18, 2016.
In this case, the Board finds the February 2016 opinions to be incomplete for rating purposes. Here, the Veteran’s lay statements concerning constant exposure to aircraft engine noise, and his recent contentions regarding jet fuel were not of record at the time of the February 2016 medical opinion, and therefore were not considered in rendering the opinion. Accordingly, a new VA examination is necessary prior to adjudicating the claims. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007).
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
1. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus. The claims folder and this remand must be made available to the examiner for review, and the examination report must reflect that such a review was undertaken.
Any indicated studies should be performed and all pertinent pathology found on examination should be noted on the evaluation report.
The examiner should render an opinion as to the following:
a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's hearing loss had its onset in, or is otherwise related to, active service?
b.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's tinnitus had its onset in, or is otherwise related to, active service?
In rendering the opinions, the examiner is asked to address the Veteran’s contention concerning constant exposure to aircraft engine noise. Additionally, the examiner is asked to address the Veteran’s contention concerning the effect of exposure to jet fuel on his current-claimed hearing loss and tinnitus, and the accompanying medical literature. (Correspondence, dated September 13, 2016).
 
Michael Pappas
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	A. Marsh II, Associate Counsel