Citation Nr: 20005702 Decision Date: 01/23/20 Archive Date: 01/23/20 DOCKET NO. 18-09 944 DATE: January 23, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for Meniere's syndrome is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1960 to December 1963. In support of these claims, he testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge of the Board during an October 2019 videoconference hearing. A transcript of the proceeding is of record. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for Meniere's syndrome is remanded. A preliminary review of the record on appeal indicates the Veteran is receiving compensation from the Social Security Administration (SSA). See October 2019 Board Videoconference Hearing Transcript. VA has a duty to obtain SSA records when on notice that the Veteran is receiving benefits from this other Federal agency – provided the records are potentially relevant to his VA appeal. See Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363 (1992). Regarding the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination June 2017. The VA examiner concluded that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not related to his military service because he separated from service with normal hearing. However, it is now well-established by caselaw (see Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993)) that hearing loss need not be shown in service (or even necessarily soon after, so during even the one-year presumptive period following service for sensorineural hearing loss especially) to be found service connected. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Accordingly, the June 2017 VA opinion is inadequate, requiring supplemental comment. Furthermore, the evidence of record raises the issue of whether the Veteran’s Meniere’s syndrome is secondary to his service-connected tinnitus and the bilateral hearing loss that he additionally is trying to show is service connected. See October 2019 Board Videoconference Hearing Transcript. He has not been afforded a VA examination for a medical opinion regarding his claim of entitlement to service connection for Meniere’s syndrome. VA’s duty to assist includes providing a medical examination for an opinion when needed to make a decision on a claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). Therefore, the Board finds it necessary to have the Veteran undergo a VA examination for an opinion concerning the etiology of his Meniere’s syndrome – including especially in terms of its posited secondary relationship with his service by way of a service-connected disability. McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 79. Lastly, the Veteran indicated during his October 2019 Board videoconference hearing that he receives medical care through VA outpatient facilities; however, the most recent treatment records in the file are from January 2018. Therefore, updated treatment records need to be obtained so they, too, may be considered.   These matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and request authorization to obtain all outstanding records pertinent to his claims, to include those from Nevada Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC), as well as any private treatment records following proper VA procedures (38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)). Appropriately notify him if unable to obtain identified records (38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e)). 2. Obtain and associate with the file all SSA records (medical and administrative) concerning the Veteran. All actions to obtain these records must be documented in the claims file and the Veteran appropriately notified if unable to obtain these records. 3. After obtaining all additional treatment and SSA records, afford the Veteran another VA audiological examination for additional (supplemental) comment concerning the nature and etiology of his bilateral hearing loss. A copy of this remand and all relevant medical and other records must be made available to the examiner. The examiner should review the pertinent evidence, including the Veteran’s lay assertions, and undertake all indicated studies. The examiner must provide a rationale for the medical opinion.   Based on a review of the results of the Veteran’s hearing evaluation, his statements regarding the development and treatment of his disability, and a review of the claims file, including this remand, the examiner is asked to answer the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s currently- diagnosed bilateral hearing loss disability began in service, or, if sensorineural in nature, within a year of his discharge from service, or is otherwise related to or the result of his alleged noise exposure and consequent injury (acoustic trauma) during his service? The Veteran has indicated sustaining acoustic trauma during his military service. The mere absence of evidence of treatment for a hearing loss disability in the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) cannot, alone, be sufficient rationale for disassociating this claimed condition from his service, nor if he did not meet the requirements for a ratable disability during service, including at time of separation (i.e., he only needs to currently satisfy the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, not also have while he was in service). The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report noise exposure and hearing problems in service, his symptoms and history, and such reports must be specifically considered in formulating any opinions. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. This includes addressing the significance of normal hearing at time of separation from service if, as the prior VA examiner seemingly concluded, there is no such thing as “delayed-onset” hearing loss. 4. Also schedule a VA examination with an appropriate VA clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s Meniere’s syndrome. The entire claims file must be made available, and the addendum opinion should include discussion of the Veteran’s documented medical history and assertions. After reviewing the claims file, the examiner is asked to answer the following questions: (a.) Does the Veteran have Meniere’s syndrome? (b.) If he does or at least has at some point since or contemporaneous to the filing of this claim, is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that his Meniere’s syndrome was caused by his tinnitus and/or bilateral hearing loss? (c.) If not, is it alternatively at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that his Meniere’s syndrome is aggravated by his tinnitus and/or bilateral hearing loss? If aggravation is found, please identify to the extent possible the baseline level of disability prior to the aggravation and determine what degree of additional impairment is attributable to aggravation of the Meniere’s syndrome by the tinnitus and/or bilateral hearing loss. (d.) If no causation or aggravation warrants a secondary correlation between Meniere’s syndrome and tinnitus and/or bilateral hearing loss, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s Meniere’s syndrome began during his service or is otherwise related to or the result of a disease, an event, or an injury in service? When responding, whether favorably or unfavorably, the examiner must provide explanatory rationale for all medical opinions provided or conclusions - preferably citing to supporting evidence in the file and/or accepted medical authority. The absence of evidence of treatment for the Veteran’s claimed disability in his STRs cannot, at least alone, be the sole or exclusive reason for providing a negative opinion, although this can be a consideration if explanation is provided as to why there reasonably should be this expectation.   The examiner is also advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and his reports must be specifically considered in formulating all opinions. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, the examiner should provide a reason or explanation for doing so. KEITH W. ALLEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Mukherjee The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.