Citation Nr: 18122001 Decision Date: 07/27/18 Archive Date: 07/27/18 DOCKET NO. 12-21 462 DATE: July 27, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND Although the Board regrets the delay, remand is necessary in order to afford the Veteran another VA examination in connection with his claim. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination concerning his claimed bilateral hearing loss in June 2011. The Veteran reported that his hearing loss first became noticeable in 1957 while he was on the firing range. The examiner found that the Veteran exhibited sensorineural hearing loss in the right ear, but not the left. She noted that the Veteran’s entrance and discharge examination showed normal hearing and concluded that the Veteran’s right ear hearing loss “is believed to be less likely as not related to military noise exposure.” The examiner did not address the Veteran’s lay testimony that he first noticed hearing loss during active service. In March 2018, the Veteran testified at a travel board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. He testified that he was regularly exposed to hazardous noise while serving as a member of his unit’s rifle team, as well as during his overseas tour in Germany, when he was exposed to artillery noises. He testified that his ears were unprotected during this time because he was not issued hearing protection. He testified that he first noticed hearing loss when he left active duty, then noticed it again later, when he started work as an electrician. However, the Veteran also testified that he did not notice his hearing loss until about ten years after service. Finally, the Veteran testified that his hearing loss has worsened since his June 2011 examination. Overall, the Board finds that the evidence warrants a remand for a new examination. While the last examination showed right ear hearing loss, the evidence associated with the Veteran’s record since then suggests his hearing in both ears has worsened. Additionally, the June 2011 examiner did not address the Veteran’s report that he first noticed his hearing loss when he was on the firing range in 1957. Moreover, the Veteran has recently testified that he also noticed hearing loss shortly after discharge. Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. After completing the foregoing, schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the manifestations and severity of his hearing loss. The examiner should be provided with the Veteran’s complete claims file, including a copy of this remand. The file must be reviewed. The examiner is asked to provide current audiometric findings and speech recognition findings for both ears and to provide a description of the impact of the Veteran’s hearing loss on his activities of daily life and occupational impairment. If it is determined that the Veteran now has hearing loss that constitutes a disability for VA purposes, the examiner is requested to offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that hearing loss is causally or etiologically related to the Veteran’s service. Note: The term “at least as likely as not” does not mean merely within the realm of medical possibility, but that the medical evidence for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of causation as it is to find against it. The examiner should assume that the Veteran is a credible historian and should specifically consider his lay testimony concerning the onset of his hearing loss. If the examiner is unable to provide the requested opinion without resort to speculation, he or she should so state; however, a complete rationale for such a finding must be provided. For all conclusions, the examiner must identify and explain the medical basis or bases, with identification of the evidence of record. (Continued on the next page)   2. Then, readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the benefit remains denied, provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case and allow an appropriate time for response. Thereafter, return the appeal to the Board, as warranted. L. CHU Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. T. Raftery, Associate Counsel