Citation Nr: 20007488 Decision Date: 01/30/20 Archive Date: 01/29/20 DOCKET NO. 18-26 472 DATE: January 30, 2020 REMANDED The issue of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from June 2001 to September 2007, May 2009 to June 2010, and January 2012 to April 2012. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus and entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss are remanded. The Veteran testified he attempted to reschedule his VA medical examination for hearing loss and tinnitus due to weather conditions prior to the regional office’s (RO’s) January 2018 determination. The Board has determined the Veteran has shown good cause and that a new examination be scheduled. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request the Veteran provide any service treatment records he possesses or identify and secure any relevant private medical records that are not in the claims file. If the Veteran identifies private records, following the securing of the appropriate waivers, make all appropriate attempts to locate such records and to associate them with the claims file. If the Veteran has no further evidence to submit, or, if after exhaustive efforts have been made, no records can be identified, so annotate the record. 2. Obtain any outstanding VA medical records and associate them with the claims file. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination, consistent with VA rating protocols, to determine the nature and etiology of any current hearing impairment diagnoses. The entire claims file, including a copy of the Remand, should be made available to, and be reviewed by, the VA examiner. All appropriate tests, studies, and consultations should be accomplished, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail. An explanation should be given for all opinions and conclusions rendered. Based upon a review of the relevant evidence of record, history provided by the Veteran, and sound medical principles, the VA examiner should provide the following opinions: Were any of the Veteran’s current hearing impairment diagnoses, to include tinnitus and hearing loss, incurred in service or caused by an in-service injury, event or illness? The examiner must review the entire record in conjunction with rendering the requested opinions. IN ADDITION TO ANY RECORDS THAT ARE GENERATED BECAUSE OF THIS REMAND, the VA examiner’s attention is drawn to the following: * The January 2001 report of medical history indicated the Veteran denied hearing loss. See “DPRIS Response,” received August 17, 2015, page 245 of 275. His January 2001 audiological examination indicated hearing within normal limits. See Id. at page 246. * November 2007 VA treatment records that indicate the Veteran denied symptoms of hearing loss or tinnitus. See “CAPRI,” received December 31, 2015, page 70 of 90. * The Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS) included combat engineer, and his statements regarding exposure to loud noises are presumed credible. See “Form 9,” received May 21, 2018. See also “Hearing Transcript,” received December 13, 2019. * In December 2015 the VA notified the Veteran that his service treatment records (STRs) could not be located. * January 2016 VA medical examination, when the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with normal bilateral hearing and the Veteran reported the onset of tinnitus 5 or 6 years prior. See “C&P Exam,” received January 11, 2016. A thorough explanation must be provided for the opinion rendered. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, s/he should expressly indicate this and provide supporting rationale as to why the opinion cannot be made without resorting to speculation. THE EXAMINER IS ADVISED THAT BY LAW, THE MERE STATEMENT THAT THE CLAIMS FOLDER WAS REVIEWED, AND/OR THE EXAMINER HAS EXPERTISE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO FIND THE EXAMINATION/OPINION SUFFICIENT. 4. Following the review and any additional development deemed necessary, readjudicate the claims. Should the claims not be granted in its entirety, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and forward the claims to the Board for adjudication. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). These claims must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West 2014). Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Anwar, Attorney-Advisor 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.