Citation Nr: 20049974 Decision Date: 07/28/20 Archive Date: 07/28/20 DOCKET NO. 17-14 759 DATE: July 28, 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 Army from June 1964 to May 1966. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In December 2018, the Board remanded the matter to the RO for further development. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran seeks service connection for hearing loss as a result of military noise exposure. Unfortunately, the Board cannot make a fully informed decision on the Veteran’s service connection claim because the only VA examination and medical opinion of record, in September 2019, is inadequate. In this regard, while the Veteran had hearing loss for VA purposes, the September 2019 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not related to service because the Veteran’s hearing was within normal limits when he separated from active military service. The VA examiner also generally noted that research suggests there is no sufficient scientific basis for the existence of delayed-onset hearing loss or tinnitus. The VA examiner did not provide an explanation as to how this research specifically related to the Veteran’s claim. This opinion is inadequate because it appears to be based almost entirely upon a finding that the Veteran had normal hearing at the time of his separation from active service. However, the absence of documented hearing loss while in service is not fatal to the claim for service connection, and the absence of evidence in the service treatment records is an insufficient basis, by itself, for a negative opinion. Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). The Board notes that when a Veteran does not meet the regulatory requirements for a hearing loss disability at separation, he can still establish service connection by submitting evidence that a current disability is causally related to service. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159-160 (1993). Here, the Veteran has described in-service noise exposure during basic training and has current hearing loss for VA purposes. Despite, the Veteran’s reported exposure to artillery fire during basic training, the examiner did not acknowledge or incorporate in-service noise exposure into his rationale nor clearly address the issue of whether the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss is related to his conceded in-service noise exposure, irrespective of the normal separation examination. Therefore, remand is necessary so that the Veteran is afforded a new VA examination. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the Veteran’s claims file any outstanding VA treatment records. The last VA treatment of record is dated October 2014. 2. Provide the Veteran with another opportunity to identify any private treatment records related to his claim. After securing any necessary releases, attempt to obtain and associate any identified treatment records with the claims file. 3. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA audiologic examination with an appropriate examiner in order to determine whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is related to service. All appropriate testing should be conducted. The Veteran’s claims file must be made available to, and be reviewed by the examiner, including a copy of this remand. The Veteran should be asked whether he experienced hearing loss in service and whether it continued in the years after service. Following examination and review of the claims file, the examiner should opine whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) began during military service, within one year of discharge therefrom, or is otherwise the result of military service, to include any noise exposure therein and the currently service connected tinnitus. The examiner should focus specifically on whether the noise exposure in service caused any current hearing impairment. Facts and medical principles relied upon to arrive at an opinion should be set forth, including any principles relating to the possibility of a delayed onset of loss of acuity due to noise exposure in service. In considering any lay statements of record, the examiner should note that the Veteran is competent to attest to matters of which he had first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. MARJORIE A. AUER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Amanda Purcell, 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.