Citation Nr: 21002632 Decision Date: 01/14/21 Archive Date: 01/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-02 087 DATE: January 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for service-connected hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service with the U.S. Navy from January 1965 to April 1966, and from April 1966 to April 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Providence, Rhode Island (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in an August 2020 videoconference hearing. A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the record. 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for service-connected hearing loss is remanded. While the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in May 2015 to determine the current severity of service-connected hearing loss, within an August 2020 videoconference hearing, the Veteran testified that his right and left ear hearing loss had worsened, making it difficult for him to understand his wife and women in general. Glover v. West, 185 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.327 (2020) (“Generally, reexaminations will be required if…evidence indicates there has been a material change in a disability or that the current rating may be incorrect.”); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1994) (finding that the Board erred in finding a VA examination sufficiently contemporaneous to inform its decision because the appellant presented post-examination evidence suggesting that his condition had worsened). Therefore, the Board finds that remand for a new VA examination is necessary to determine the current severity of service-connected bilateral hearing loss prior to rendering a decision on the appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4)(i) (2020). 2. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is remanded. A medical examination or medical opinion may be deemed necessary where the record contains competent medical evidence of a current diagnosed disability, establishes that the veteran suffered an event, injury or disease in service, and indicates that the claimed disability may be associated with the established event, injury or disease in service. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet App. 79, 83 (2006). Here, the Veteran provided lay evidence within August 2020 videoconference hearing testimony that he had symptoms of poor sleep and snoring while in service, and soon after separation, had symptoms of lack-of-breathing during sleep as heard by his second wife. Private medical records show the Veteran was diagnosed with sleep apnea by a September 2010 sleep study. The Veteran has not yet been afforded a VA Examination to determine whether currently diagnosed sleep apnea was incurred in or caused by active service. Therefore, the Board finds that remand is necessary for a VA examination prior to rendering a decision on the appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4)(i) (2020). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an updated VA examination to address the current severity of service-connected bilateral hearing loss. All indicated studies or testing should be conducted. The examination report must include a complete rationale for all opinions and conclusions reached. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of currently diagnosed sleep apnea. The claims file must be reviewed in conjunction with the examination. All testing deemed necessary must be conducted and results reported in detail. Upon review of the Veteran’s claims file, the examiner is requested determine whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that diagnosed sleep apnea was incurred in or caused by active service. The VA examiner should consider the Veteran’s lay statements in rendering an opinion. The term “at least as likely as not” does not mean “within the realm of medical possibility.” Rather, it means that the weight of medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of that conclusion as it is to find against it. The examiner must provide a complete explanation for his or her opinions, based on his or her clinical experience, medical expertise, and established medical principles. If any of the above requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and specifically explain whether there is any potentially available information that, if obtained, would allow for a non-speculative opinion to be provided. 3. After all development has been completed, the AOJ should readjudicate the claims on appeal. If the benefits sought remain denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case, and be given an opportunity to submit written or other argument in response before the claims file is returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. R. Woodarek 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.