Citation Nr: 18155671 Decision Date: 12/04/18 Archive Date: 12/04/18 DOCKET NO. 16-40 677 DATE: December 4, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from June 1973 to June 1976. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran claims that his hearing loss is due to his military service. The Veteran explained that although he worked in loud work environments after service, he was required to wear hearing protection. In contrast, he did not wear hearing protection during service and none was provided to him. The record shows that the Veteran worked as a wheeled vehicle mechanic during service. The April 2015 examiner noted that there was a high probability of noise exposure in this position. The Veteran also explained that he was pushed through the discharge process quickly and skipped many of the out-processing requirements. He did not remember having a proper hearing examination upon discharge. Although noise exposure was probable in service, the examiner opined that as the enlistment and separation examinations showed normal hearing, it was less likely than not that his current hearing loss was related to his military service. The examiner sited to the American College of Occupational Medicine Noise and Hearing Conservation Committee which noted that a noise induced hearing loss will not progress once it is stopped. See April 2015 Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ). The examiner relied on the Veteran’s normal enlistment and separation examination in finding that it was less likely as not that current hearing loss was due to noise exposure during his military service; however, in Hensley, the Court held that 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. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). The Board concluded that a supplemental opinion is needed that considers the finding in Hensley. Furthermore, the February 1976 discharge examination showed at least some degree of hearing loss was indicated in service for the left ear when testing at 4000 Hertz. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 1993 (the threshold for normal hearing is zero decibels to 20 decibels and higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss) (citing CURRENT MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS & TREATMENT 110-11 (Stephen A Schroeder et al. eds., 1988)); see February 1976 Discharge examination. Therefore, the Veteran’s left hear appears not to have normal hearing at the time of discharge. This should be considered in the new opinion. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request and addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any bilateral hearing loss. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including noise exposure from vehicles during service. The clinician is directed to the discharge examination noting a finding of 25 at 4000 Hertz in the left ear. Note that the lack of documented treatment or diagnosis of hearing loss in service, while probative, cannot serve as the sole basis for a negative finding. The Veteran’s military occupational specialty and lay contentions must be considered and weighed in making the determination as to whether a nexus exists between service and the currently diagnosed hearing loss. 2. Readjudicate the Veteran’s claim, with application of all appropriate laws, regulations, and case law, and consideration of any additional information obtained as a result of this remand. If the decision remains adverse to the Veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded an appropriate period of time within which to respond thereto. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tahirih S. Samadani, Counsel