Citation Nr: 18154689 Decision Date: 11/30/18 Archive Date: 11/30/18 DOCKET NO. 16-57 212 DATE: November 30, 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 from October 1967 to October 1969. Service in the Republic of Vietnam is indicated by the record. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Chicago, Illinois. In May 2018, the Veteran presented sworn testimony during a videoconference hearing, which was chaired by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the Veteran’s VA claims file. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The Veteran asserts entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, which he contends were incurred during his active duty service. He has indicated that he was exposed to small arms and mortar fire, as well as helicopter noise during his service in the Republic of Vietnam. See the May 2018 Board hearing transcript. As the Veteran’s contentions of in-service noise exposure are consistent with his MOS of light weapons infantryman as well as his history of combat service in the Republic of Vietnam, the Board finds that in-service acoustic trauma is conceded. The Veteran’s service treatment records do not document in-service complaints of hearing loss and/or tinnitus. The Veteran was afforded a VA audiology examination in February 2012 at which time the examiner confirmed diagnoses of tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss sufficient for VA compensation purposes. The examiner determined that the diagnosed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are less likely as not caused by or a result of the Veteran’s military service. The examiner explained that the Veteran “had an audiometric evaluation at the time of his separation that indicates his hearing was well within normal limits at that time.” As to the diagnosed tinnitus, the examiner stated, “[t]here was no mention of tinnitus in his SMR. He denied ear trouble at the time of his separation physical. He stated today that he first began to notice tinnitus five to six years ago, many years after separation from the military.” The February 2012 VA examiner’s opinion failed to consider the Veteran’s lay assertions of acoustic trauma during service with audiological symptoms manifesting thereafter. To this end, the lack of evidence of treatment for the claimed disorder in the Veteran’s service treatment records cannot, standing alone, serve as the basis for a negative opinion. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, VA regulations do not preclude service connection for a hearing loss, which first met VA’s definition of disability after service. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157-59 (1993). Thus, the Board finds the evidence of record is insufficient to determine whether service connection is warranted for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007) (once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a service connection claim, even if not statutorily obligated to do so, it must provide one that is adequate for purposes of the determination being made). These matters must therefore be remanded to obtain a new VA opinion as to the etiology of the claimed disabilities. Additionally, the Veteran has recently submitted lay statements from three people detailing his long-standing history of hearing impairment. The examiner should consider these statements in rendering his/her opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Arrange to obtain an addendum opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran’s diagnosed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, based on claims file review, if possible. If an examination is deemed necessary in the judgment of the clinician designated to provide the addendum opinion, one should be arranged. The claims file must be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination. With respect to the diagnosed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, the examiner should render an opinion, consistent with sound medical judgment, addressing whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the disability had its onset in service or is otherwise medically related to in-service injury or disease, including the conceded acoustic trauma. In addressing the above, the examiner must consider and discuss all pertinent medical, periodical, and other objective in- and post-service evidence, and all lay assertions, including those lay statements referenced above. In this regard, the examiner should note that the absence of evidence of treatment for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus in the Veteran’s service treatment records should not serve as the sole basis for a negative opinion. The examiner is also advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinions. If the Veteran’s assertions in any regard are discounted, the examiner should clearly so state and explain why. All examination findings/testing results (if any), along with complete, clearly-stated rationale for the conclusions reached, must be provided. K. CONNER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. K. Buckley, Counsel