Citation Nr: 20028041 Decision Date: 04/22/20 Archive Date: 04/22/20 DOCKET NO. 14-34 719A DATE: April 22, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from September 1967 to September 1969 and November 1990 to April 1991 in the United States Army. In May 2018, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a July 2019 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) the parties agreed that the Board’s decision should be vacated. In August 2019, the Court remanded the issues to the Board for action consistent with the JMR. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The December 2010 VA examiner based their opinion on in-service audiogram results, to include results dated September 1967 and September 1969. Because it is unclear whether such thresholds were recorded using American Standards Association (ASA) units or International Standards Organization-American National Standards Institute (ISO-ANSI) units, the Board will consider the recorded metrics under both standards, relying on the unit measurement most favorable to the Veteran’s appeal. Under VA policy, prior to January 1, 1967, the ASA standard is assumed to have been used. Between January 1, 1967 and December 31, 1970, the data should be considered under both ASA and ISO-ANSI standards. After December 31, 1970, the ISO-ANSI standard is assumed to have been used. In light of the above, and where necessary to facilitate data comparison for VA purposes in the decision below, including under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, audiometric data originally recorded using ASA standards will be converted to ISO-ANSI standard by adding between 5 and 15 decibels to the recorded data as follows: Hertz 250 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 8000 add 15 15 10 10 10 5 10 10 Therefore, an addendum opinion is necessary with the VA examiner considering entrance audiogram findings after conversion to ISO-ANSI of the following. In September 1967, after conversion to ISO-ANSI, the Veteran’s puretone thresholds in dB were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 Right Ear 30 20 20 25 15 Left Ear 25 25 15 20 10 In September 1969, after conversion to ISO-ANSI, the Veteran’s puretone thresholds in dB were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 Right Ear 30 25 25 -- 20 Left Ear 30 25 25 -- 20 An addendum opinion is necessary to consider the converted puretone thresholds. 2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus is remanded. The JMR notes that the VA examiner in December 2010 indicated an inconclusive or speculative finding regarding the Veteran’s tinnitus, but did not provide an explanation for this finding. Therefore, the issue is remanded for an addendum opinion. If any opinion still cannot be offered without resort to mere speculation, the examiner must fully explain why this is the case and identify what, if any, additional evidence would potentially allow for a more definitive opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s hearing loss is causally or etiologically related to his active service. The examiner should address the converted September 1967 and September 1969 audiogram from ASA to ISO-ANSI. The examiner should consider any findings of hearing loss and whether they reflect any threshold shift between 1967, 1969, 1987, and 1991. The examiner should also address whether the Veteran’s tinnitus is causally or etiologically related to his active service or to his bilateral hearing loss. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions offered. If any opinion still cannot be offered without resort to mere speculation, the examiner must fully explain why this is the case and identify what, if any, additional evidence would potentially allow for a more definitive opinion. If an additional examination is required for the examiner to sufficiently address the above questions, then a new examination should be afforded. 2. After undertaking the development above and any additional development deemed necessary, the Veteran’s claims should be readjudicated. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the appellant and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and be given an appropriate period to respond thereto before the case is returned to the Board, if in order. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Patricia Veresink, 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.