Citation Nr: 18152411 Decision Date: 11/21/18 Archive Date: 11/21/18 DOCKET NO. 16-00 277 DATE: November 21, 2018 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1971 to April 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a July 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. 1. Entitlement to Service Connection for Bilateral Hearing Loss The Veteran asserts that he has bilateral hearing loss that is due to in-service exposure to noise from being a door gunner during Vietnam. See VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals, received November 2015. The Veteran’s statements are consistent with the circumstances of his service, to include his military occupational specialty as an Aircraft Maintenance Apprentice, and are not contradicted by any evidence of record. Therefore, they are considered credible. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a) (2012). The Veteran was afforded a VA audiology examination in January 2012. The January 2012 VA audiology examination report reflects that the Veteran has bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2017). The VA examiner reviewed the record, interviewed the Veteran, and conducted an in-person examination. The VA examiner noted the Veteran’s in-service noise exposure, to include as a helicopter door gunner. However, the VA examiner concluded that a medical opinion could not be provided regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s hearing loss without resorting to speculation. As a rationale for that conclusion, the examiner explained that, the Veteran’s service treatment records contain three audiological examinations. The Veteran’s March 1971 entrance examination reveals normal bilateral hearing; an April 1972 audiological examination reveals mild bilateral hearing loss; and the Veteran’s April 1974 exit examination reveals normal bilateral hearing. As such, the VA examiner stated that the Veteran’s service treatment records show no evidence of permanent high frequency hearing loss or threshold shift in service; however, the audiological examinations were variable. As a result, the January 2012 VA examiner concluded that an opinion could not be rendered as to whether the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss is related to his active service without resorting to speculation. Under applicable law, the absence of in-service evidence of a hearing loss disability is not always fatal to a service connection claim. See Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). Evidence of a current hearing disability and a medically sound basis for attributing that disability to service may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection for hearing loss where there is credible evidence of acoustic trauma due to significant noise exposure in service. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). In addition, VA may not simply disregard lay evidence because it is unaccompanied by medical evidence, see Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d. 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In this case, the Veteran has presented competent and credible evidence of in-service acoustic trauma. The VA audiology examiner’s conclusion that an etiology opinion could not be provided without resorting to speculation is based largely on the fact that the Veteran’s service treatment records contain variable audiometric test results. In the rationale, the VA examiner did not acknowledge the Veteran’s competent and credible reports of in-service noise exposure or explain why consistent in-service audiometric testing results are required to determine whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was incurred in active service or is otherwise etiologically related to his active service. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that the VA audiology examiner’s opinion is inadequate for decision-making purposes. Therefore, the matter must be remanded so that an adequate VA addendum opinion may be obtained. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the record and a copy of this remand to the examiner who conducted the January 2012 VA audiology examination or, if that examiner is not available, to a similarly qualified VA clinician for preparation of an addendum opinion. If the examiner determines that another in-person examination of the Veteran is required to provide the below-requested information, then such an examination should be scheduled. (a.) Following review of the record, the examiner should express an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss is caused by or otherwise etiologically related to his active service, to include in-service noise exposure. Rationale must be provided for the opinion proffered. The examiner must note that, under applicable law, the absence of in-service evidence of a hearing loss disability is not always fatal to a service connection claim. See Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). Evidence of a current hearing disability and a medically sound basis for attributing that disability to service may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection for hearing loss where there is credible evidence of acoustic trauma due to significant noise exposure in service. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). Therefore, the fact that the Veteran’s separation examination does not display bilateral hearing loss does not necessarily render the opinion requested impossible to provide without resort to mere speculation. In this case, the Veteran is considered competent and credible in his contention that he was exposed to noise from helicopters and as a door gunner. The opinion provided therefore should reflect consideration of whether, given the in-service noise exposure and the Veteran’s specific descriptions of his service, the evidence establishes that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was incurred in active service or is otherwise etiologically related to his active service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d) (2017). If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the examiner must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. The examiner must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. Additionally, the examiner must indicate whether any opinion could not be rendered due to limitation of knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular examiner. See Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382 (2010). 2. After completion of the above, review the expanded record, including the evidence entered since the most recent statement of the case, and determine whether service connection for bilateral hearing loss may be granted. If the benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case. The appropriate period should be allowed for response before the appeal is returned to the Board. U. R. POWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. G. LeMoine, Associate Counsel