Citation Nr: 21000267 Decision Date: 01/05/21 Archive Date: 01/05/21 DOCKET NO. 14-41 944 DATE: January 5, 2021 REMANDED The claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The claim for service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from June 1960 to March 1964. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran appealed. In May 2018, the Veteran was afforded a hearing before the undersigned. In October 2018, the Board remanded the claims for additional development. In September 2019, the Board denied the claims. The appellant appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In August 2020, while his case was pending at the Court, the VA’s Office of General Counsel and the Veteran’s representative filed a Joint Motion requesting that the Court vacate the Board’s September 2019 decision. That same month, the Court issued an Order vacating the September 2019 Board decision and remanding the case for compliance with a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR). 1. The claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are remanded. A review of the JMR shows that it was agreed that a remand was required, in part, because a June 2019 VA opinion failed to comply with the Board’s October 2018 remand. Specifically, the examiner had failed to discuss an inservice threshold shift, and a May 2012 opinion from Dr. B. Citing Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). A remand is therefore required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a medical opinion to address the Board’s questions. If a physical examination is necessary to answer the Board’s questions, one should be scheduled. After review of the record, the examiner should address the following questions: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and/or tinnitus either began during or was otherwise caused by his service in the Air Force, between June 1960 to March 1964, to include noise exposure sustained therein? Why or why not? The examiner should specifically comment on the clinical significance, if any, of threshold shifts in the Veteran’s hearing acuity during his active service and whether those shifts suggest that inservice noise exposure caused his current hearing loss and/or tinnitus. The examiner should also discuss Dr. B’s May 2012 opinion. The examiner should also review the August 2020 joint motion for remand (“CAVC Decision”) to understand why earlier medical opinions were found to be inadequate. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T.S.E., 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.