Citation Nr: 21002518 Decision Date: 01/13/21 Archive Date: 01/13/21 DOCKET NO. 15-23 939 DATE: January 13, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from November 1959 to October 1962. His claim comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2014 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision. The Veteran testified in support of his appeal during a video conference hearing held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in November 2018. In February 2019 and August 2020, the Board remanded this claim to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional action. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss on a direct basis, as related to in-service noise exposure and/or acoustic trauma while working with radio relay equipment as a radio relay operator. He contends that this equipment produced squealing, high-pitched noises, to which he listened daily through headphones, exposing him to noise. He asserts that the acoustic trauma occurred when he and other soldiers with whom he worked were fooling around with the radio equipment. He recalls once, during the Berlin Crisis, on his birthday, he was at a relay station between two posts, when the others adjusted the squelch (turned it up so that it blasted in his ears), resulting in an inability to hear for a couple of days. He also recalls a similar incident the day before he got married in April 1962, when others turned the squelch way up, really hurting his ears. He could hardly hear what was going on during his wedding, but he didn’t want to report the incident; it would have resulted in a court martial. He asserts that he has had hearing loss since then. He further asserts that, following his discharge from service, he sustained no acoustic trauma industrially or recreationally. In a June 2014 rating decision and February 2019 Remand, the AOJ and Board, respectively, conceded that the Veteran had both in-service noise exposure and in-service acoustic trauma (noise injury). In August 2020, the Board remanded this claim to the AOJ for a VA opinion addressing whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to the noise exposure and/or acoustic trauma. This opinion is inadequate as the examiner failed to answer this question, instead finding that the Veteran had no in-service acoustic trauma. In addition, as the Veteran’s points out in his December 2020 Written Brief Presentation, the examiner ruled out a relationship between the Veteran’s hearing loss and service, in part, on the basis that the Veteran had significant occupational noise exposure (worked in kitchen cabinetry) and recreational noise exposure (wood-working). The Veteran asserts that the former type of work involved him scraping and applying glue (as he testified at his hearing), tasks that did not expose him to noise, and he never worked with wood. Another opinion is therefore needed. This claim is REMANDED for the following action: Transfer this case to the VA examiner who evaluated the Veteran’s file in September 2020 for an addendum opinion on the etiology of the Veteran’s hearing loss. The examiner should first acknowledge VA’s concession that the Veteran experienced noise exposure and acoustic trauma, both described above, in service. The examiner should then review all pertinent evidence of record, including (a) the Veteran’s service treatment and personnel records; (b) his post-service treatment records, including results of audiological testing; (c) the May 2014 and November 2019 VA examination reports; (d) the Veteran’s June 2015 VA Form 9; (e) multiple medical articles submitted in October 2018; (f) the Veteran’s October 2018 written statement and November 2018 hearing testimony, in which he outlines his contentions and cites to literature supporting these contentions; (g) his spouse’s December 2018 written statement; (h) the July 2020 and December 2020 Written Brief Presentations, in which the Veteran offers additional contentions and cites to relevant medical literature and case law; (i) the examiner’s inadequate September 2020 medical opinion; and (j) the discussion above. Accepting as true that the Veteran experienced the in-service noise exposure and acoustic trauma described above (disagreement with finding not appropriate), opine whether the Veteran’s hearing loss is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to such exposure and acoustic trauma. (Continued on the next page)   If the examiner believes post-service occupational and/or recreational noise exposure, including secondary to working with kitchen cabinetry (scraping and gluing) and/or wood-working, plays a role in the decision, the examiner should specifically reference where, in the record, evidence establishes such noise exposure. The examiner should provide clear rationale for the opinion. LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board L. N. 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.