Citation Nr: 21062411 Decision Date: 10/07/21 Archive Date: 10/07/21 DOCKET NO. 17-19 156 DATE: October 7, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the Army from January 1967 to January 1969. The Veteran appeared and testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veteran's Law Judge (VLJ) in September 2020. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. The Veteran's claim was most recently before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) in April 2021 wherein it was remanded for additional development. Unfortunately, the requested development was not in substantial compliance with the Board's remand instructions. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Thus, another remand is required. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Board previously remanded the Veteran's claim because it found the April 2015 VA examination to be inadequate. In so finding, it explained that while the examiner denied the claim because the Veteran's hearing was within normal limits at entrance and discharge, VA regulations and caselaw do not preclude service connection for a hearing loss which first met VA's definition of disability after service. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993); see also Godfrey v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 352, 356 (1992). While the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) obtained a medical opinion (and VA examination), the August 2021 opinion is inadequate. In finding that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is less likely than not related to service, the examiner explained that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise during service, but that he had normal hearing at entrance and exit from service. However, the opinion does not address why the Veteran could not develop hearing loss which first met VA's definition of disability after service. Hensley, supra. Given the inadequate opinion, a remand is needed. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion regarding the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss from an appropriate clinician. An in-person examination is not required unless deemed necessary and appropriate by the clinician. The clinician should answer the following question: Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is etiologically related to service? The clinician should be aware that VA regulations do not preclude service connection for hearing loss which first met VA's definition of disability after service. Thus, the clinician MUST address how the conceded acoustic trauma in-service did not LATER lead to hearing loss, after service. The lack of documented treatment/diminished hearing in service, while probative, cannot serve as the sole basis for a negative finding. The Veteran's lay contentions (e.g., the Veteran's military and post-military exposure to noise, to include occupational noise exposure, as noted in the April 2015 and August 2021 VA exam) must be considered and weighed in making the determination as to whether a nexus exists between the current hearing loss and service. The examiner is asked to provide the underlying reasons for all opinions expressed, and is reminded that the term "as likely as not" does not mean "within the realm of medical possibility," but rather that the evidence of record is so evenly divided that, in the examiner's expert opinion, it is as medically sound to find in favor of the proposition as against it. Bethany L. Buck Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board I. M. Hitchcock 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.