Citation Nr: 21003503 Decision Date: 01/21/21 Archive Date: 01/21/21 DOCKET NO. 16-19 929 DATE: January 21, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1967 to March 1970. These matters are before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In February 2020, the Board remanded the Veteran’s claims for further development. The claim for service connection for tinnitus was granted in a November 2020 rating decision and will not be addressed in this decision. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Despite the additional and regrettable delay, a remand is required because the October 2020 VA examination and medical opinion obtained provided an inadequate rationale for its opinion. The examiner’s only reason for opining that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was related to service was due to the fact that there were no significant threshold shifts during service. This reasoning is legally inadequate. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (holding that most of the probative value of an opinion comes from its rationale or underlying reasoning). Therefore, a remand is required in order to obtain an addendum medical opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Please note that this Veteran’s case has been advanced on the docket and, by law, ALL remanded claims must be processed expeditiously. 2. The AOJ should arrange for a VA medical opinion (to exclude the October 2020 examiner), with examination or telehealth interview of the Veteran ONLY IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL, to determine the nature and likely cause of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability. The examiner should review the claim file (including this remand) and note such review was conducted. Based on review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion with detailed rationale that responds to the following: (a.) For the Veteran’s already diagnosed hearing loss disability, is it at least as likely as not (50% or greater probability) that such disability was either incurred in or otherwise related to the Veteran’s military service? Please explain why. The Board notes for the examiner that the October 2020 VA medical examination and opinion found the Veteran’s in-service exposure to hazardous noise (which VA has conceded) was at least as likely as not the cause of his tinnitus disability, i.e., caused the Veteran to have some form of hearing loss disability apart from bilateral hearing loss. The examiner is requested to address this in the opinion rendered. The examiner is reminded that the Veteran is competent to provide information about observable symptoms and events. The examiner should assume, for the purposes of the opinions, that the Veteran’s reports are both accurate and credible. The examiner is also reminded that, by law, an opinion based ONLY on a lack of threshold shifts in service is not adequate. A detailed explanation (rationale) is required for all opinions provided. (By law, the Board is not permitted to rely on any conclusion that is not supported by a thorough explanation. Providing an opinion or conclusion without a thorough explanation will delay processing of the claim and may also result in a clarification being requested.) VICTORIA MOSHIASHWILI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Williams, 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.