Citation Nr: 20021186 Decision Date: 03/24/20 Archive Date: 03/24/20 DOCKET NO. 18-46 988 DATE: March 24, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from July 1957 to July 1961. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. The Veteran is seeking service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability, which he contends stems from in-service noise exposure. The August 2016 and June 2018 VA examiners were unable to provide a definitive opinion as to whether the Veteran’s hearing loss disability was related to in-service noise exposure. The examiner indicated that the Veteran was only administered a whispered voice test at separation which, according to the examiner, precludes providing an opinion without resorting to mere speculation. Most recently, the Veteran submitted a medical treatise attesting to the possibility of having delayed onset hearing loss. The Board remands this issue for opinion by an otolaryngologist to considers whether the Veteran may manifest delayed onset hearing loss. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate updated private and VA treatment records with the claims folder. 2. Forward the claims folder to an otolaryngologist for opinion as to whether the Veteran’s in-service noise exposure resulted in delayed onset hearing loss. Following review of the claims folder, please provide opinion on the following question: a) Whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s bilateral sensorineural hearing loss is causally related to events in service, to include his reported history of noise exposure during service? The expert is asked to specifically comment on the concept of a delayed onset hearing loss (i.e., does absence of pertinent complaints and normal audiometry/whispered voice test at separation preclude a nexus between the current disability and exposure to noise trauma in service). If feasible, the consulting expert is asked to cite to medical literature supporting the responses to the questions posed. (continued on the next page) 3. Thereafter, readjudicate the claim. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case and an appropriate period of time to respond. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Orie, 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.