Citation Nr: 20046294 Decision Date: 07/10/20 Archive Date: 07/10/20 DOCKET NO. 20-07 297 DATE: July 10, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1960 to July 1964. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in October 2018 at which time a VA clinician opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss was not caused by his active duty service. See October 2018 VA Examination, pp. 4-5. The basis for the examiner’s opinion was an absence of evidence of in-service hearing loss. However, the absence of a hearing loss disability in service is not fatal to a claim for service connection for hearing loss. Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). Rather, the proper inquiry is not only whether hearing loss was demonstrated in service, but also whether any current hearing disability can be related to in-service noise exposure. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 164 (1993). Therefore, the Board finds that a new examination is needed that adequately addresses the likely etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and considers his contentions. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 3014 (2008). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain a VA examination that addresses the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. Any indicated evaluations, studies, and tests deemed necessary by the examiner should be accomplished. The entire claims file should be made available to the examiner designated to provide an opinion, and the examination report should include a discussion of the Veteran’s documented medical history and assertions. After eliciting a detailed history of the Veteran’s disability, the examiner should offer comments, an opinion, and a supporting rationale that address whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was incurred in, aggravated by, or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s active duty service. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be considered. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, the examiner must provide a reason for doing so. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board W.V. Walker, 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.