Citation Nr: 18129366 Decision Date: 08/24/18 Archive Date: 08/24/18 DOCKET NO. 16-10 256 DATE: August 24, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from January 1959 to January 1961. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. He contends that the condition began in February 1961 and is due to exposure to noise from artillery fire and helicopters without proper hearing protection. With regard to the noise from helicopters, the Veteran has stated that he noticed a loss of hearing acuity immediately after the exposure, that his hearing acuity gradually improved thereafter, but that his hearing never returned to normal after that. He has stated that he did not seek medical care for the perceived hearing loss because he was told that his hearing would return to normal eventually and because he did not feel that he needed or could get medical care for the issue. The Veteran underwent a VA audiological examination in July 2013. Audiometric testing performed at that examination revealed a hearing loss disability for VA purposes, as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s current hearing loss is not at least as likely as not caused by or a result of an event in his military service because the Veteran’s military occupational specialty of general supply specialist is considered to have a low probability of exposure to potentially hazardous noise levels, and because the Veteran was discharged in January 1961 but only had his first hearing evaluation in 2001 and reported a more than 50-year history of working as a postal clerk after his discharge from active service. In January 2016, another VA examiner provided an opinion that the Veteran’s current hearing loss is less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. As a rationale for that opinion, the examiner explained that the Veteran had no evidence of hearing loss on his medical examination for separation from active service, and remote noise exposure does not cause delayed-onset hearing loss. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records reveals that the Veteran had a normal evaluation of the ears and scored 15 out of 15 on whispered voice tests conducted at pre-induction and induction medical examinations in April 1958 and January 1959, respectively. The Veteran also had a normal evaluation of the ears and scored a 15 out of 15 on a whispered voice test at a December 1960 medical examination for separation from active service. The service treatment records include no audiometric testing results. The Board notes that VA has acknowledged that whispered voice tests are “notoriously subjective, inaccurate, and insensitive to the types of hearing loss most commonly associated with noise exposure,” and “cannot be considered as reliable evidence that hearing loss did or did not occur.” Veterans Benefits Administration Training Letter 211D (10-02), dated March 18, 2010. Accordingly, the only reliable evidence of record as to whether the Veteran had in-service hearing loss is his subjective reports of a perceived loss in hearing acuity following exposure to noise from helicopters. In view of the above, the Board finds that the VA opinions of record are inadequate for decision-making purposes because they do not address the Veteran’s reports. Specifically, the July 2013 VA examiner discussed only the Veteran’s military occupational specialty, the fact that the Veteran did not seek care for his hearing loss until 2001, and the fact that he worked as a postal clerk after his separation from active service. The examiner did not address the actual noise exposure and perceived hearing loss reported by the Veteran. The January 2016 VA examiner based his finding that the Veteran did not have in-service hearing loss on the unreliable whispered voice test results, and discussed only the issue of delayed-onset hearing loss. He did not address the Veteran’s report of noticing hearing loss immediately after the in-service noise exposure. As such, the Board finds that the issue must be remanded so that an addendum opinion may be obtained that addresses the Veteran’s reports of being exposed to noise from artillery fire and helicopters in service and noticing a loss in hearing acuity immediately after that exposure. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) related to exposure to noise from artillery fire and from helicopters, as reported by the Veteran in the record. In providing the requested opinion, the examiner must assume the Veteran’s reports of in-service noise exposure to be credible. The examiner is also asked to disregard the whispered voice test scores in the Veteran’s service treatment records, as VA has acknowledged that whispered voice testing is not reliable in showing the types of hearing loss most commonly associated with noise exposure. Instead, the examiner should state whether the Veteran’s current hearing loss may be related to the hearing loss the Veteran says he had immediately after the in-service noise exposure. If the clinician selected determines that the information requested above cannot be provided without further in-person examination of the Veteran, then such an examination should be scheduled. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. J. Anthony, Counsel