Citation Nr: 20007909 Decision Date: 01/30/20 Archive Date: 01/30/20 DOCKET NO. 18-33 139 DATE: January 30, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from March 1957 to March 1961. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in July 2017 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In December 2019, the Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of that hearing is of record. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran contends that his current hearing loss is related to his active duty service. For the reasons that follow, his claim shall be remanded. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, the Veteran has hearing loss that meets the standard to be considered a disability for VA purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Veteran’s service treatment records are not of record, as they are presumed to be lost in a fire. That said, the Veteran has offered competent and credible statements regarding his in-service noise exposure. The first two criteria of the service connection framework are met. There is, however, no adequate opinion establishing that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss is related to his active service. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in June 2017. At that time, the examiner determined that he could not determine whether the Veteran’s hearing loss was related to his service without resort to mere speculation, noting that she had not yet reviewed the Veteran’s claims file or his service treatment records. As noted, the Veteran’s service treatment records are not available, and merely noting that they had not been reviewed without more does not make the inability to offer an opinion adequate. In contrast, in December 2019, the Veteran submitted a letter from a private physician, Dr. J. Gilmore. In the letter, Dr. Gilmore opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss is likely due in large part to hazardous noise exposure while in service. However, the opinion is not supported by a medical explanation or rationale sufficient to provide a nexus between the Veteran’s military service and his current hearing loss. Given these facts, a remand is required in order to obtain an adequate opinion. The Veteran remains free to submit additional evidence on his own behalf, including any nexus statement supported by a rationale. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate examiner regarding whether the Veteran’s hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to his active duty service. The examiner is advised that the Veteran’s service treatment records are not available, and that no negative inference may be drawn from the lack of records in this case. The examiner must consider the Veteran’s lay statements and include a complete rationale for all opinions provided. Specifically, the clinician must provide a medical explanation for all conclusions citing to supporting evidence and medical literature or principles as appropriate. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. K. Hall, Associate 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.