Citation Nr: 21003492 Decision Date: 01/21/21 Archive Date: 01/21/21 DOCKET NO. 15-04 182A DATE: January 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from August 1970 to July 1974. The Veteran appointed his current service representative to represent him before VA by filing a completed VA Form 21-22 at the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in September 2018. A videoconference Board hearing was held in May 2019 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a copy of the hearing transcript has been added to the record. In September 2019, the Board denied the Veteran’s claims. The Veteran, through an attorney, and VA’s Office of General Counsel, appealed the September 2019 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) by filing a Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion). The Court granted the Joint Motion in August 2020, vacating and remanding the Board’s September 2019 decision. Both parties to the Joint Motion argued successfully to the Court that the Board erred in the September 2019 decision by relying on a June 2014 VA examination to deny the Veteran’s service connection claims for bilateral hearing loss and for tinnitus. They argued that this examination is inadequate for VA adjudication purposes. The Board notes that it is bound by the Court’s August 2020 Order granting the Joint Motion. The Board also notes that there is no medical evidence currently associated with the claims file which addresses the contended etiological relationship between the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and active service. Thus, the Board finds that, on remand, the AOJ should obtain medical nexus opinions addressing these matters. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the claims file to an appropriate clinician for opinions concerning the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran does not need to report for examination. Based on a review of the claims file, the clinician is asked to opine whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that bilateral hearing loss, if present, is related to active service. The clinician next is asked to opine whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that tinnitus, if present, is related to active service. A rationale must be provided for any opinion(s) expressed. If any requested opinion(s) cannot be provided without resorting to speculation, then the clinician should explain why this is so. The clinician is advised to explain the clinical significance, if any, of the Veteran’s in-service audiograms, to include if there were any significant threshold shifts in his hearing during service. Per the Joint Motion for Remand, if the examiner finds that the rationale is based on either the results of the audio test at separation or the difference in results between entrance and separation, the clinician must explain why the specific numbers support the conclusion. The clinician also is advised that the lack of contemporaneous records documenting complaints of and treatment for bilateral hearing loss or tinnitus, alone, is insufficient support for a medical nexus opinion. 2. Readjudicate the appeal. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael T. Osborne, 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.