Citation Nr: 21000995 Decision Date: 01/06/21 Archive Date: 01/06/21 DOCKET NO. 13-23 032 DATE: January 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from April 1961 to September 1963. In April 2014, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In September 2014, the Board remanded the appeal for additional development. In April 2015, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability and remanded another issue for additional evidentiary development. The Veteran appealed the April 2015 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a September 2016 Memorandum Decision, the Court vacated the Board’s decision that denied entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability; the matter was returned to the Board for action consistent with the Memorandum Decision. In a May 2017 decision, the Board again remanded the issue of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability for additional evidentiary development. The Board notes that in the same decision, a separate issue was denied and is no longer for appellate review. The matter then returned to the Board and was again remanded by the Board in a November 2017 decision, to ensure compliance with the May 2017 decision to obtain an addendum opinion. In a December 2018 decision, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran appealed the December 2018 Board decision to the Court. In a June 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Court vacated the Board’s December 2018 decision that denied entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability; the matter has now returned to the Board for action consistent with the Memorandum Decision. In particular, the Court found that the December 2017 VA opinion was inadequate for purposes of determining service connection because the examiner did not specifically address the Veteran’s credible statement that his hearing loss began during his active military service. When an examiner fails to address a veteran’s lay evidence, and the Board fails to find the veteran not credible or not competent to offer that lay evidence, the proper remedy is for VA to obtain a new examination. See Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249, 260 (2020). Consequently, a new VA examination is required per the Court to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate examiner regarding the etiology of his bilateral hearing loss. The examiner should review the claims file. Following the examination, the examiner must opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater possibility) that any diagnosed hearing loss is etiologically related to or aggravated by service. If a hearing loss disability is not shown, that should also be noted. A complete rationale must be provided for these opinions, and the examiner must address the objective audiometric testing results. The examiner should consider the Veteran’s lay statements to be credible evidence of in-service and post-service symptoms. Specifically, the examiner must address the Veteran’s statement that he began experiencing hearing loss during active military service. Please provide the basis for any medical determination and a rationale or medical explanation for the opinion. If medical literature is used, please provide a citation. If the examiner finds that an opinion cannot be rendered regarding which medical evidence best reflects the etiology of the Veteran’s hearing loss or a comment cannot be made regarding a possible functional effect without resorting to speculation, the examiner should state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency   in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or by the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). 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.