Citation Nr: 20034571
Decision Date: 05/18/20	Archive Date: 05/18/20

DOCKET NO. 19-22 251
DATE: May 18, 2020

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss.

REASONS FOR REMAND

Regrettably, the Board finds that a remand is needed.  A VA opinion received in August 2017 stated that the Veteran’s right ear hearing loss was not incurred in service on the basis that he had normal hearing at both entrance and separation examinations. neither impaired hearing nor significant threshold shifts were present during military service. However, the lack of evidence of a hearing loss disability in service is an insufficient rationale for a negative opinion. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159-60 (1993). Therefore, the appeal is remanded so that another opinion may be obtained. 

The matter is REMANDED for the following actions:

1. Undertake appropriate development to obtain outstanding, relevant treatment notes.

2. Obtain an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s hearing loss from an appropriately qualified clinician. The evidentiary record must be made available to and reviewed by the clinician. 

Based on review of the record, the VA clinician is asked to respond to the following:

Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s hearing loss was incurred in, or is otherwise related, to his time on active service, to include his conceded noise exposure?

The clinician is advised that lack of documented hearing loss in service or at service separation is not a sufficient rationale for a negative opinion.  The clinician should specifically consider the role the Veteran’s in-service noise exposure had in his development of hearing loss. The clinician is also advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history.  If the clinician rejects the Veteran’s reports, he or she must provide an explanation for doing so. 

All opinions must be supported by a complete rationale.  If the clinician is unable to provide any required opinion or if an opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to mere speculation, the clinician must explain why.

If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the clinician should identify what information that is needed.

 

K. M. SCHAEFER

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Stuedemann, 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.