Citation Nr: 20052935 Decision Date: 08/10/20 Archive Date: 08/10/20 DOCKET NO. 18-10 498 DATE: August 10, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1975 to June 1977. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In a June 2018 decision, the Board denied the Veteran’s claims of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a March 2020 Order, granting a March 2020 Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion), the Court vacated the Board’s June 2018 decision and remanded the above-identified matters for further development in compliance with the directives specified in the Joint Motion. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. In the March 2020 Joint Motion, the parties agreed that the Board erred when it failed to ensure that VA satisfied its duty to assist with respect to the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The parties specifically indicated that the Board “erred in relying on the June 2017 VA audiology examination because the examiner provided an inadequate rationale in support of her opinion.” The parties stated that the examiner failed to explain “how she found [the Veteran’s] hearing to be normal in the right ear at separation when he had elevated puretone thresholds in two frequencies at separation.” The parties additionally indicated that the June 2017 VA examiner did not address the Veteran’s puretone threshold shifts during service in the left ear, as documented in the June 1971 Hearing Conservation Data and in the November 1971 Report of Medical Examination. The parties to the Joint Motion further stated that the matter of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus was inextricably intertwined with the bilateral hearing loss claim because the June 2017 VA examiner had found that the Veteran’s tinnitus was related to his bilateral hearing loss. Accordingly, in light of the Joint Motion, the Board finds that these matters must be remanded to provide the Veteran with an updated VA medical opinion to determine the etiology of the diagnosed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus to specifically address concerns raised by the parties to the Joint Motion. Upon remand, the AOJ should also obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. After obtaining the appropriate release of information forms where necessary, procure any records of outstanding treatment that the Veteran has recently received. All such available documents should be associated with the claims file. 2. Arrange to obtain an addendum opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran’s diagnosed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, based on claims file review, if possible. If an examination is deemed necessary in the judgment of the clinician designated to provide the addendum opinion, one should be arranged. The claims file must be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination. With respect to the diagnosed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, the examiner should render an opinion, consistent with sound medical judgment, addressing whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the disability had its onset in service or is otherwise medically related to in-service injury or disease, including the conceded noise exposure. In rendering his/her opinion, the examiner should specifically address the Veteran’s elevated puretone thresholds in two frequencies in his right ear as noted in his November 1976 separation examination. The examiner must also address the Veteran’s puretone threshold shifts in his left ear as indicated in the June 1971 Hearing Conservation Data and the November 1971 Report of Medical Examination. In addressing the above, the examiner must consider all pertinent evidence, including lay assertions. (Continued on the next page)   The examiner is also advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be considered in formulating any opinions. If the Veteran’s assertions in any regard are discounted, the examiner should clearly so state and explain why. All examination findings/testing results (if any), along with complete, clearly-stated rationale for the conclusions reached, must be provided. K. Conner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. K. Buckley, 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.