Citation Nr: 20052985 Decision Date: 08/10/20 Archive Date: 08/10/20 DOCKET NO. 19-36 983 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 in the U.S. Navy from November 1960 to November 1964 and from July 1967 to February 1983. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded The Veteran contends that exposure to hazardous noise from jet engines while on active service caused his bilateral hearing loss and he is seeking service connection. In June 2018, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination for bilateral hearing loss. At that time, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 30 30 35 40 45 LEFT 25 25 35 40 35 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 92 percent in the right ear and of 100 in the left ear. The average decibel loss was 38 in the right ear and 35 in the left ear. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral sensorineural hearing loss was less likely than not a result of his active military service. In support of this conclusion, the examiner explained that because the Veteran’s hearing was within normal limits at the time of separation, his current hearing loss was less likely than not caused by his active service. However, in Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 160 (1993), the Court found that the absence of hearing loss disability in service is not necessarily fatal to a claim for compensation for post-service hearing loss disability. Further, while the examiner acknowledged the Veteran’s lay statements in support of his claim, the examiner did not discuss them in any meaningful way to support the rendered rationale. Specifically, that the Veteran worked on the flight line while in active service and was exposed to hazardous noise from jet engines. Moreover, in the various tests in service, there were fluctuations in recorded decibel levels that should be ideitified and explained if significant. When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination, it must ensure that the examination is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). Therefore, the Board finds that the June 2018 examination is inadequate for determining service connection remand is warranted to obtain an adequate opinion. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded The Veteran asserts service connection for tinnitus and contends that his tinnitus is caused by his active service. In June 2018, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination for his claimed tinnitus. However, the examiner explained that there was not diagnosis of tinnitus because tinnitus was not claimed. Indeed, the Veteran submitted his claim for service connection for tinnitus in March 2018. Accordingly, the Board finds that the June 2018 does not indicate that an examination for tinnitus was performed. Therefore, a remand is required to afford the Veteran an adequate examination to fully develop his claimed tinnitus. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Arrange for the Veteran to have an examination by a qualified audiologist for the purpose of determining the current nature and likely etiology of any hearing loss and tinnitus. The electronic claims file must be made available to the examiner for review, and the examination must reflect that such review has been accomplished. All appropriate testing should be conducted, and the examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is as likely as not (that is, a probability of 50 percent or greater) that any current hearing loss or tinnitus had its origin in service or is in any way related to the Veteran’s active service, including whether the Veteran’s tinnitus is related to his hearing loss. In responding the examiner is asked to indicate whether there is other likely etiology of hearing loss or tinnitus, if unrelated to service, to include advancing age, infection, or other cause. Specifically, it should be indicated whether the type of hearing loss found is the type exhibited by acoustic trauma, as opposed to some other cause. In reaching these determinations, the examiner must take into account and discuss the Veteran’s credible lay statements regarding his noise exposure by jet engines while on active service and all other lay statements. The examiner is advised that a finding that the Veteran’s hearing loss was not significant enough to be considered disabling at separation is not, by itself, a sufficient rationale for an opinion that a relationship to service is less likely than not. The rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided. If an opinion cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner should so state and provide reasoning as to why a conclusion would be so outside the norm that such an opinion is not possible. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms and treatment and that his lay statements must be taken into account in formulating the opinion. MICHAEL D LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Scanlan, 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.