Citation Nr: 20030147
Decision Date: 04/29/20	Archive Date: 04/29/20

DOCKET NO. 16-62 598
DATE: April 29, 2020

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from June 1960 to June 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision.  This matter was previously before the Board in April 2018 and July 2019.

Remand is necessary to obtain an additional VA medical opinion. Most recently, the July 2019 Board Remand directed the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to consider the Veteran’s entrance audiogram results after converting those results from American Standard Association (ASA) to International Standards Organization (ISO)-American National Standards Institute (ISO-ANSI) audiometric standards. This was not accomplished in the September 2019 VA addendum opinion, as the examiner only converted the results of a June 15, 1960 audiogram from ASA to ISO-ANSI audiometric standards and did not convert the results of a June 10, 1960 audiogram from ASA to ISO-ANSI audiometric standards. The Board notes that the September 2019 Addendum/Clarification Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ), which the examiner completed, requested that the examiner convert both the June 10 and 15, 1960 audiograms to ISO-ANSI audiometric standards. Thus, a VA opinion that meets the requirements of the July 2019 Remand is necessary. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998).  

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. 

The opinion provider must address the following:

(a) Convert both the Veteran’s June 10, 1960 and June 15, 1960 entrance examination audiogram results from ASA to ISO-ANSI audiometric standards.

(b) Did the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss clearly and unmistakably preexist his military service?

(c) If it is determined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss clearly and unmistakably preexisted his military service, was his bilateral hearing loss clearly and unmistakably not aggravated in service?

(d) If it is determined that the Veteran’s hearing loss did not clearly and unmistakably preexist entry to service or was not clearly and unmistakably not aggravated by service, was it at least as likely as not (i.e., 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was a result of military service, to include as a result of conceded in-service acoustic trauma?

In addressing these questions, the opinion provider must discuss the possibility of delayed-onset hearing loss.

If the opinion provider cannot answer these questions without conducting an in-person examination, such an examination should be scheduled.

 

 

L. BARSTOW

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Norwood, 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.