Citation Nr: 18138294 Decision Date: 09/26/18 Archive Date: 09/25/18 DOCKET NO. 16-25 519 DATE: September 26, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1966 to December 1969. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A hearing was held before the undersigned in June 2018, a transcript of which is of record. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran asserts that his bilateral hearing loss is related to his time in service. The Veteran filed his claim for bilateral hearing loss in March 2012, claiming that hearing loss started in 1969. He was afforded a VA examination in October 2013. The VA examination reflected that the Veteran had hearing loss for VA purposes in the left ear, but did not reflect hearing loss for VA purposes in the right ear. However, private audiometry results of June 2016 and June 2018 reflect hearing loss for VA purposes in both ears. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Veteran testified at his June 2018 Board hearing that as part of his military occupational specialty (MOS) as a radio operator, he spent 8 hours a day for 9 of every 12 days, with his headset on, listening to Morse code and tracking aircraft, which included listening to frequencies that changed in volume based on where the tracked aircraft was. The Veteran’s DD Form 214 reflects that his military occupational specialty was as a Morse intercept operatory; therefore, his description of noise exposure is consistent with the circumstances of his service. The Veteran also testified that after service, he spent 37 years with General Electric doing various jobs, all of which required hearing protection at the risk of an OSHA violation. He also provided testimony that essentially indicated that he was not sure if he had any hearing loss when he first got out of service, because he was young and “didn’t really care” at the time. But he further testified that about two to three years after his discharge, he noticed something was a little different with his hearing. He also reported that his hearing loss today requires that he have the TV up louder, his wife must talk louder, and he must pay extra attention to anyone talking to him so he can understand them. Based on the Veteran’s testimony and the medical evidence of record, the Board finds that the Veteran has a current disability of hearing loss for VA purposes and that the Veteran experienced in-service acoustic trauma as a radio operator, and an in-service event has been established. Of note, the October 2013 VA examiner noted that the Veteran’s hearing loss was not related to his active duty service as the entrance and exit examinations were normal. However, the Board finds the examiner’s opinion to be inadequate. The fact that hearing loss was not demonstrated during active duty is not fatal to the Veteran’s claim. Moreover, the examiner’s negative nexus opinion lacks any meaningful rationale, as he then only noted that his hearing loss at 500 hertz was not a frequency associated with noise-induced hearing loss. Normal hearing upon separation examination is not an adequate basis for a negative nexus opinion in such a case. See Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992); see also Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). As such, the Board finds this nexus opinion to be inadequate. In light of this inadequate nexus opinion and the newly obtained evidence of hearing loss for VA purposes in the right ear, the Board finds that another VA opinion must be obtained. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The Veteran has not indicated that he gets treatment for his bilateral hearing loss, but upon remand he should be afforded the opportunity to identify any treatment providers for his claimed condition. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Contact the Veteran and request the VA treatment facilities or private treatment facilities where he receives treatment for his claimed condition, including securing from him VA Form 21-4142 for any private physicians as identified by the Veteran. 2. After obtaining any additional records, schedule the Veteran for an audiological examination to assess the etiology of claimed bilateral hearing loss. Audiometric testing and speech discrimination testing (using the Maryland CNC word list) should be completed. The clinician must opine whether bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including the conceded noise exposure in service. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. If the clinician cannot provide a requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the clinician must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. The clinician must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. Additionally, the clinician must indicate whether any opinion could not be rendered due to limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular examiner. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD LM Stallings, Associate Counsel