Citation Nr: 21004452 Decision Date: 01/27/21 Archive Date: 01/27/21 DOCKET NO. 14-16 003 DATE: January 27, 2021 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from November 1968 to December 1968. These matters come before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) from an August 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Chicago, Illinois. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, further development is needed prior to adjudication of both issues on appeal. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in connection with his claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss in August 2010. At that time, the examiner concluded that the Veteran’s hearing loss appeared to have existed prior to his entry into active duty service and was not aggravated by service. Notably, although a medical history report associated with the Veteran’s entrance into active duty service is associated with the file, there is no accompanying examination report. See 38 U.S.C. § 1111; C.F.R. § 3.304(b). Additionally, the evidence currently of record suggests, but does not confirm, that the Veteran’s hearing loss is associated with a congenital defect or disease. See, e.g., December 5, 1968 Report of Medical Examination. In light of the foregoing, a VA examination that addresses whether the hearing loss identified during the Veteran’s period of active duty service clearly and unmistakably preexisted service and clearly and unmistakably did not undergo an increase in underlying pathology during service and that addresses, if necessary, whether that hearing loss is associated with a congenital defect or disease, is needed on remand. 2. Service connection for tinnitus Information obtained during an examination conducted to assess the onset and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss may include evidence that is relevant to his claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. Accordingly, the issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus must also be remanded. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 181 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination to determine the nature and etiology of his bilateral hearing loss. The examiner is asked to respond to the following: a) Please ask the Veteran to describe any in-service noise exposure he experienced in November and December 1968. Please include his responses in the examination report. b) Did the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss clearly and unmistakably (i.e., obviously, manifestly, or undebatably) preexist his period of active service, which began in November 1968? Please explain why or why not. c) If your answer to b) was “yes,” does the evidence clearly and unmistakably (i.e., obviously, manifestly, or undebatably) show that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss did not undergo an increase in the underlying pathology, i.e., an aggravation, during service, or show that any increase in disability was due to the natural progression of the disease? Please explain why or why not. d) If, and only if, your answer to b) or c) was “no,” please respond to the following: i) Please clarify whether the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss is a congenital disease; a congenital defect; or an acquired disease. For VA compensation purposes, the definition of a “congenital defect” is a congenital condition that is static in nature. The definition of a congenital “disease” is a congenital condition capable of improving or deteriorating. ii) If the Veteran’s hearing loss is a congenital defect, is it at least as likely as not that there was a superimposed disease or injury on the congenital defect during active military service? If yes, please identify the superimposed disease or injury, as well as the resultant disability due to the superimposed disease or injury. iii) If the Veteran’s hearing loss is a congenital disease, was it was clearly and unmistakably (i.e., obviously, manifestly, or undebatably) not aggravated while in service? iv) If your answer to iii) was “yes” or the Veteran’s hearing loss is an acquired disease, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that is current bilateral hearing loss is related to active service? Please explain why or why not. L. STEPANICK Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. McKenzie, 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.