Citation Nr: 20006929 Decision Date: 01/28/20 Archive Date: 01/28/20 DOCKET NO. 17-24 808 DATE: January 28, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1955 to October 1959. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an August 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2019, the Veteran appeared at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is in the record. In April 2017, the RO determined that August 2008, October 2008, and April 2016 audiograms were unavailable because a VA Medical Center had not responded. This is unacceptable development. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2), (e). Further action is necessary. The Veteran received a VA examination in August 2014. The examiner determined the hearing loss was less likely than not the result of service as the Veteran entered and separated from service with normal hearing and without a significant shift in hearing during active service. The examiner also concluded tinnitus was unrelated to service because there was no evidence of noise induced hearing loss at separation. The Board finds that the examination is incomplete. First, the examiner does not explain the clinical significance that there was no significant shift in hearing between entrance and separation. Second, although the examiner stated there was no evidence of noise-induced pathology, the examiner did not explain what this meant other to state that the Veteran had normal hearing at separation. The examiner also did not explain how the in-service test results precluded service connection for a hearing loss that had either a sudden onset or gradually progressed over the years. A rationale based solely on the absence of hearing loss during service is insufficient. While the Veteran submitted a private medical opinion, that too is incomplete. The audiologist noted that she had not reviewed service hearing testing results. The Board finds this significant as hearing testing during service showed no hearing loss disability, the significance of which should be addressed in any positive opinion. In addition, the audiologist noted in-service and post-service noise exposure, including as an iron worker who “occasionally” used hearing protection. The audiologist did not adequately address the significant post-service noise exposure in determining the current hearing loss was related to service. Accordingly, the Board has determined that another medical opinion is necessary to assist the Board in its adjudication. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify all outstanding treatment records relevant to his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus claims. All identified VA records should be added to the claims file. All other properly identified records should be obtained if the necessary authorization to obtain the records is provided by the Veteran. If any records are not available, or the Veteran identifies sources of treatment but does not provide authorization to obtain records, appropriate action should be taken (see 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)-(e)), to include notifying the Veteran of the unavailability of the records. 2. The RO is to specifically request and associate with the file copies of the Veteran’s VA hearing test results in August 2008, October 2008, and April 2016. Efforts to obtain these records should only stop if it is concluded that the records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain those records would be futile, and in such a case the Veteran should be notified of the unavailability of the records. All such actions should be clearly documented in the claims file. 3. After records development is completed, the claims file should be sent to an appropriate examiner to offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus onset during service or are otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include noise exposure. The Veteran’s noise exposure history has been detailed by a VA examiner in April 2014 and a private audiologist in October 2019. (Continued on the next page.) The need for an examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. The examiner should explain why the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss is or is not merely a delayed response to in-service noise exposure. The examiner should explain the reasoning for any opinion provided, to include the medical significance of any findings, as the Board is precluded from making medical findings. Nathan Kroes Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Russell P. Veldenz, Counsel 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.