Citation Nr: 21003416 Decision Date: 01/21/21 Archive Date: 01/21/21 DOCKET NO. 15-33 558 DATE: January 21, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for a bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1966 and May 1969. This matter is on appeal from a March 2013 rating decision. The Veteran testified before a Veterans Law Judge at a videoconference hearing in December 2018. Since then, the presiding judge has now retired from the Board. The Veteran was sent a notification on December 3, 2019, asking whether he desired a new hearing with another Veterans Law Judge. A request for a new hearing must be made within 30 days of the letter. As of date, the Veteran has not responded. The Board, therefore, may reasonably conclude that the Veteran did not desire a new hearing. Procedurally, the Board initially denied the Veteran’s service connection claim for bilateral hearing loss in a July 2019 decision. He appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). A Joint Motion for Remand was filed by the representatives of both parties. In July 2020, the Court granted the JMR, vacating the July 2019 Board decision, and remanded the matter for further development consistent with the JMR. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran’s service connection claim for a bilateral hearing loss is remanded for further development. Upon review of his service treatment records, the Veteran’s enlistment examination did not suggest any problems with hearing. At the time, he had 15/15 hearing based on whisper voice tests and marked ‘no’ when asked about ear troubles. His audiometric tests did not suggest any hearing loss. His separation examination and medical history reported that the Veteran denied having ear trouble. However, testing revealed slight shift in the 2000 Hz and 4000 Hz. The Board notes that the readings in 3000 Hz were missing. While the separation examination did not specifically find chronic hearing loss, the audiometric readings in September 1968 were inconclusive. At his December 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he was exposed to loud hazardous noise during service but that he first noticed hearing loss in 2000. Overall, the Board indicated that the Veteran had credibly reported his in-service noise exposure and conceded as such based on his military occupational specialty. Based on the March 2013 VA examination report, the VA examiner found a negative nexus between the Veteran’s current hearing loss and his service. In his rationale, the VA examiner merely indicated that the Veteran had normal hearing in service. As discussed in the JMR, the VA examiner failed to provide adequate rationale to support this conclusion. Additionally, the inconclusive audiometric readings at the Veteran’s September 1968 separation examination were not addressed. The Veteran’s credible statements regarding his exposure to hazardous noise in service were also not addressed. Accordingly, the Board finds that on remand, a new medical opinion addressing the etiology of his hearing loss must be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum medical opinion from an appropriate examiner to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination if deemed necessary by the examiner. The examiner is asked to address the following: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss had onset in service or is otherwise related to service? Why or why not? In his or her conclusion, the VA examiner must discuss the Veteran’s September 1968 audiometric reading at his separation examination and address the significance, if any, of the lack of testing in the 3000 Hz level. The VA examiner must also consider the Veteran’s lay statements regarding his exposure to hazardous military noise in service. The VA examiner should note that the Board has conceded hazardous noise exposure while in service due to his duties as an infantryman. Tiffany Dawson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Yeh, 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.