Citation Nr: 18150455
Decision Date: 11/16/18	Archive Date: 11/15/18

DOCKET NO. 12-31 768
DATE:	November 16, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served in the United States Army from April 1974 to April 1977.  This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2010 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California.
In May 2016, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a videoconference hearing.  Since that hearing, the Board has remanded the case on two occasions, first in June 2016, and later in July 2017.  
The Board regrets further delay, but finds that additional development is necessary before a decision may be rendered on the issue on appeal.  
In February 2018, and pursuant to the Board’s most recent remand, the Veteran underwent a VA contract audiologic examination.  While the examiner rendered a medical opinion against the claim; it is inadequate.  The examiner stated “[a]udiograms dated 12 Jul 73, 21 Feb 77, 1 Apr 76, and 23 Jan 75 show normal hearing sensitivity bilaterally.  Since hearing was normal on last exam 2/24/77, less than 2 months prior to separation, the current hearing loss could not be caused by the noise exposure that ceased 41 years ago.” 
The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) in Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993), indicated that the regulation defining disability due to impaired hearing, 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, does not preclude service connection for a current hearing disability where hearing was within normal limits on audiometric testing at separation from service if there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a relationship between the Veteran’s service and his current disability. The Court’s directives in Hensley are consistent with the regulation setting forth the requirements for service connection, 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).  It provides that service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 
Here, the VA examiner’s opinion addressing the etiology of the hearing loss disability appears to be based solely on the lack of evidence of hearing loss in the Veteran’s audiograms during service and upon separation from service. Furthermore, it appears that the examiner failed to consider and address the Veteran’s assertion of in-service noise exposure as an aircraft mechanic, and his descriptions involving onset of, and continuity of symptomatology of a hearing loss disability.  
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
Return the claims file to the examiner who conducted the February 2018 audiologic examination, or, if that individual is unavailable, schedule the Veteran for another examination.  The examiner must review the claims file and must note that review in the report. 
The examiner must address the following:  

Is the Veteran’s current hearing loss disability at least as likely as not (e.g. a 50 percent probability or greater) etiologically related to acoustic trauma experienced during the Veteran’s active military service?  Why do you say so?   
In rendering an opinion, the examiner should consider the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS), as well as the frequency and degree of any in-service noise exposure, and the Veteran’s lay statements regarding his continuous symptoms since service.  See May 2016 Hearing Transcript, Buddy Statement, and the Veteran’s January 2018 Statement in Support of Claim. 
If an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, provide an explanation as to why this is so and note what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. 
 
Matthew Tenner
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Doaw Xiong