Citation Nr: 18151612 Decision Date: 11/20/18 Archive Date: 11/19/18 DOCKET NO. 16-40 707 DATE: November 20, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1961 to June 1965. This matter is before the Board following his appeal of an April 2015 rating decision. In December 2017, the Veteran filed a claim for compensation for “ringing noises in both ears.” This claim has not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) and the Board does not have jurisdiction over it. Thus, it is referred to the AOJ for appropriate action. 38 C.F.R. § 19.9(b) (2017). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. In January 2012, the Veteran was diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss that meets the criteria for a hearing loss disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, but as noted in the April 2015 rating decision on appeal, a current hearing loss disability has not been documented during the appeal period, or since February 2015. See January 2012 Non-VA treatment record. On remand, VA should provide an examination to determine whether the Veteran currently has bilateral hearing loss for VA compensation purposes. Additionally, while on remand, VA should obtain an adequate medical opinion as to the likely etiology and date of onset of any diagnosed hearing loss disability. The Board notes that an opinion was obtained in May 2016, at which time a VA audiologist opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss is not due to service because hearing thresholds at service entrance and separation were normal. The Board finds the audiologist’s rationale is insufficient because service connection for hearing loss can still be established if the evidence shows that a current hearing disability is causally related to service. See generally Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155 (1993) (indicating that the absence of in-service evidence of hearing loss is not fatal to a claim for service connection). Accordingly, the Board finds that another opinion must be obtained on remand. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311-12 (2007) (once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination or opinion, it must provide an adequate one or, at a minimum, notify the Veteran why one will not or cannot be provided). On remand, VA should also obtain outstanding records of the Veteran’s treatment by Dr. R.R. at Southwest Family Health, as Dr. R.R. reported that the Veteran has been a patient of his for many years. See March 2017 Non-VA treatment record. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide or authorize VA to obtain records of his treatment at Southwest Family Health or by Dr. R.R. In addition, any other pertinent records identified by the Veteran during the course of the remand should be obtained and associated with the claims file. If any of the requested records are not available, this should be indicated in the file. 2. After completing the development requested above, schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed bilateral hearing loss. The claims file must be reviewed. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail. The examiner should determine whether the Veteran has hearing loss. If so, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that any current hearing loss had its onset during the Veteran’s service or within one year of his discharge from service, or is otherwise related to his service. Consideration should be given to all relevant lay and medical evidence of record, to include the Veteran’s statements regarding military noise exposure, the January 2012 audiogram report, and Dr. R.R.’s March 2017 opinion that the Veteran’s current hearing loss is more likely than not the result of acoustic trauma he experienced while serving on flight lines in service. All opinions expressed should be accompanied by supporting rationale. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. C. Wilson, Counsel