Citation Nr: 21005159 Decision Date: 01/29/21 Archive Date: 01/29/21 DOCKET NO. 19-23 016 DATE: January 29, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from August 1960 to November 1963. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2016 rating decision. In October 2019, a video conference hearing was held before the undersigned; a transcript is in the record. In January 2020, and October 2020 this matter was remanded for development. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability. The Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the previous remand directives, and that corrective action is necessary. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In October 2020 the Board remanded the matter for an adequate medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability. The November 2020 consulting provider opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss disability is related to his service. The rationale given was essentially that the Veteran’s hearing acuity remained within normal limits on separation. However, it is well established that normal hearing on separation does not preclude that a current hearing loss may be related to service, and an award of service connection. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). Accordingly, development for a new opinion (that does not rely solely on the reasoning that because the Veteran’s hearing acuity was within normal limits on separation it is less likely than not that the current bilateral hearing loss disability is related to service) is necessary. The matter is REMANDED for the following: Arrange for the Veteran’s record to be forwarded to an audiologist (other than the provider of the September 2020 and November 2020 medical opinions) for review and an advisory medical opinion regarding the etiology of his bilateral hearing loss disability. Upon review of the record (and acknowledging that the working was exposed to noise trauma in service from working in close proximity to a flight line, and that normal hearing on separation does not preclude a finding that current hearing loss is related to service, and an award of service connection) the consulting provider should: (a.) Identify the likely etiology for the Veteran’s hearing loss disability. Specifically, is it at least as likely as not (a 50% or better probability) that it is etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service and exposure to noise therein? (b.) If the hearing loss disability is determined to not be related to service (and exposure to noise therein), identify the etiology for the hearing loss considered more likely, and explain why that is so. All opinions must include rationale, with citation to supporting factual data and medical principles (and noting that the absence of a hearing loss disability at separation from service cannot be the sole basis for finding that a current hearing loss disability was not incurred in service). GEORGE R. SENYK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Staskowski, 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.