Citation Nr: 21003028 Decision Date: 01/19/21 Archive Date: 01/19/21 DOCKET NO. 17-46 540 DATE: January 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Army from July 1965 to July 1967. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) February 2014 rating decision of the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In August 2019 the Board remanded the case to the AOJ for additional development. A Board remand confers upon the appellant the right to compliance with that order. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Substantial compliance, rather than strict compliance, is required. D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008). After a review of the evidence added to the record in the time since the August 2019 remand, and for the reasons discussed below, the Board finds that the development of the Veteran’s case by the AOJ has been inadequate. Therefore, there has been no substantial compliance with the remand directives, and a further remand is necessary. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran claims that his bilateral hearing loss is due to his military service. The Veteran’s military service records show that he worked in and around aircraft engines, and this is supported by the Veteran’s own lay statements, which the Board deems to be credible. Furthermore, the Veteran has a current hearing loss disability which meets the schedular requirements for VA purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. In a February 2014 letter to VA, the Veteran stated that he has had hearing issues for “some 49 years”. The Veteran testified that he sought treatment from multiple hearing specialists over the years after he was discharged from the military. In essence, the Veteran is claiming that he has had hearing problems continuously since his active duty service. The Veteran was seen for two VA audiological examinations over the course of the appeal, the first one in February 2014 and more recently in July 2020. Both examiners opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss is not related to his military service, on the basis that his service treatment records (STRs) do not show hearing loss. The July 2020 examiner stated that the Veteran’s “exposure to hazardous noise in civilian life was far greater than his 24 months of hazardous noise in the military.” The Board notes that this assumption made by the examiner is not supported by any facts in the claims file, and directly contradicts the Veteran’s own statements that he has not engaged in activities that would include significant acoustic trauma. Neither the February 2014 nor the July 2020 examiners addressed the Veteran’s contention that his hearing problems began shortly after his discharge from service. The Veteran is competent to provide testimony regarding the symptoms he experiences, as well as the onset and duration of the symptoms. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As both of the previous examiners failed to address a key component of the Veteran’s evidence, their respective opinions are inadequate for adjudication purposes. While the Board regrets the additional delay, a further remand is necessary to assist the Veteran in developing his claim. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ shall obtain an addendum opinion from a qualified audiologist regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. The examiner shall be provided with a copy of the entire claims file, as well as a copy of these remand directives. The examiner must provide the following opinion: (a.) Whether it is as least as likely as not (50 percent chance or greater) that the Veteran’s currently diagnosed bilateral hearing loss is caused by, or otherwise due to, his active duty military service? The examiner will address the fact that the Veteran was exposed to aircraft engines without hearing protection, the significance of any post-service occupational/recreational exposure or lack thereof (including 35 years as an insurance adjuster, supervisor, and resident supervisor followed by 9 years supervising a lunch site for seniors; and recreational target shooting (protected) and motorcycle racing (unprotected)), his current hearing loss diagnosis, and the fact that the Veteran reportedly has had hearing problems since shortly after discharge from service. (Continued on the next page)   The examiner shall provide a detailed rationale for the required opinions. If the examiner cannot provide the necessary opinions without resorting to mere speculation, they must explain why that is the case. S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Neville, 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.