Citation Nr: 21001392 Decision Date: 01/07/21 Archive Date: 01/07/21 DOCKET NO. 17-65 637 DATE: January 7, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, to include as secondary to service-connected tinnitus, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1963 to July 1965. This claim arose to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a June 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Chicago, Illinois. The Board remanded this matter for further evidentiary development in February 2020. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, to include as secondary to service-connected tinnitus, is remanded. The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, to include as secondary to tinnitus. In January 2019, the Veteran submitted a statement, signed by an ear, nose, and throat (ENT) doctor, in which the doctor stated there may be a “relationship between [the Veteran’s] hearing loss and his [service-connected] tinnitus.” As the Board pointed out in its February 2020 remand, it is unclear from this letter if the doctor wished to state the Veteran’s hearing loss caused his tinnitus, or, conversely, if the Veteran’s tinnitus caused his hearing loss. Consequently, the Board requested clarification from the Veteran as well as a VA medical opinion taking the ENT doctor’s opinion into account. In March 2020, the Veteran submitted another letter from the ENT doctor opining the Veteran’s hearing loss was related to chronic noise exposure in service. However, the doctor did not provide a rationale for this opinion, merely stating he had reviewed the Veteran’s service records. In October 2020, a VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examiner provided several negative nexus opinions. Although the examiner addressed in detail why she believed the evidence did not indicate the Veteran’s hearing loss began in service, the examiner failed to address the private ENT doctor’s January 2019 statement or his March 2020 opinion. Moreover, the examiner did not provide a specific rationale in support of her opinion that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was not causally related to his service-connected tinnitus. In a November 2020 statement, the Veteran argued the C&P examiner failed to comment on his ENT doctor’s opinion nor on a December 1971 service treatment note documenting left ear pain. The Veteran also pointed out that the October 2020 SSOC readjudicating his claim incorrectly stated the Veteran had not submitted any additional medical evidence, thus indicating the RO had not considered all the pertinent evidence. In light of the above, the Board finds a remand is in order to obtain an updated medical opinion complying with the Board’s remand instructions, following by a readjudication based on the entire record. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (a Board remand confers upon the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the Board’s remand order). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an examiner to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. The examiner is asked to review the claims file and provide the following information. (a) State whether the criteria for a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes are met. (b) If the Veteran is found to have a hearing loss disability for VA purposes, opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s hearing loss was incurred in or otherwise related to the Veteran’s service; or whether it was caused or aggravated by his service-connected tinnitus. (c) If it is determined that there is another likely etiology for the Veteran’s hearing loss, that should be stated. (d) The examiner is specifically asked to comment on the Veteran’s private ENT’s doctor January 2019 and March 2020 positive nexus opinions stating that the Veteran’s hearing loss was either incurred in service or was related to his service-connected tinnitus. (Continued on the next page)   (e) The examiner is also asked to comment on the documentation of left ear pain in December 1971, as noted in the Veteran’s service treatment records. The examiner should set forth all examination findings, with a clear rationale for the conclusions reached. LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Ryan, 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.