Citation Nr: 20044751 Decision Date: 07/06/20 Archive Date: 07/06/20 DOCKET NO. 15-13 932 DATE: July 6, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1974 to May 1977 and in the Army National Guard. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a January 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This issue was previously remanded by the Board in June 2018 and has since been returned for further adjudication. The Board finds that remand is necessary to comply with the Board’s June 2018 remand instructions. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Board instructed the RO to obtain a new VA examination for the Veteran to determine if his hearing loss was related to his military service as the Veteran had submitted medical literature in September 2015 addressing his hearing loss. The remand instructions required the examiner to specifically address these medical articles. An addendum was provided in October 2019 as the examiner did not address these medical articles. The examiner stated that the articles were not attached to the representative’s article and thus did not address them. However, these articles are present and labeled in the Veteran’s claims file. As such, remand is necessary to obtain an addendum opinion to comply with the Board’s previous remand instructions. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Provide the claims file to an appropriate examiner to offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the current hearing loss onset during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. In offering the opinion, the examiner must consider and specifically address the medical articles that the Veteran submitted in September 2015 regarding delayed-onset hearing loss caused by noise exposure. The need for an examination (or telehealth interview, if an in-person examination is not feasible) is left to the discretion of the examiner. A rationale for all opinions offered is required as the Board is precluded from making any medical findings. Caroline B. Fleming Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Hofmeister, Attorney Advisor 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.