Citation Nr: A21017124 Decision Date: 10/22/21 Archive Date: 10/22/21 DOCKET NO. 210819-181835 DATE: October 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from August 1967 to August 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2020 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). The Board must remand the claim for hearing loss to correct an error of the AOJ with regard to VA's duty to assist under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a). When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The August 2020 VA medical opinion regarding the Veteran's hearing loss is not adequate because it does not account for the examiner's findings regarding tinnitus or discuss the history of the onset of the Veteran's hearing loss. The opinion regarding hearing loss does not address the findings regarding tinnitus. More specifically, in the August 2020 examination report, the examiner opined that the Veteran's tinnitus is at least as likely as not caused by his in-service noise exposure. In this regard, the Veteran's service personnel records show that he served in combat in Vietnam, and that he had a military occupational specialty (MOS) as a helicopter mechanic. The examination report states that he did not relate a "circumstance for onset of tinnitus," but noted he was constantly around "steady loud levels of noise" during service. His tinnitus was bilateral and constant. In support of the opinion, the examiner explained that the Veteran had significant noise exposure during service from helicopter engines, gunfire, flight deck noise, pneumatic power tools, and mortars and rockets. The examiner noted that the Veteran reported that his tinnitus had its onset during active service. The examiner concluded that excessive noise exposure is known to cause tinnitus, and therefore it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's tinnitus is caused by his in-service noise exposure. However, the examiner opined that the Veteran's hearing loss is less likely than not related to in-service noise exposure. The examiner observed that the "the relationship of noise exposure, auditory damage, and hearing loss is well-established." However, the audiometric testing results during service showed no significant puretone threshold shift between entrance and separation, which was objective evidence of no permanent hearing damage during service. The examiner's opinion regarding hearing loss does not account for the findings regarding tinnitus. While the audiometric testing results may not have shown hearing damage, the fact that the Veteran's tinnitus was caused by in-service noise exposure would suggest that he did sustain acoustic trauma from that exposure. Moreover, the examiner did not elicit from the Veteran a history of the onset of his hearing loss, but did obtain one for his tinnitus. That history may provide pertinent information regarding the etiology of the hearing loss, as it did for the tinnitus. Because the August 2020 VA medical opinion is not adequate, a duty-to-assist error occurred prior to the AOJ decision on appeal. Therefore, remand is warranted to correct that error. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain a new VA medical opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to his in-service noise exposure. The examiner must obtain from the Veteran, and record, a history of the onset of his hearing loss to the extent possible. Although the Veteran had normal audiometric testing results during service, the examiner must address the finding in the August 2020 VA medical opinion that the Veteran's tinnitus is related to his in-service noise exposure, which seems to suggest that he did sustain auditory damage due to such exposure. The examiner must also discuss whether the subsequent onset of the Veteran's hearing loss may be related to in-service noise exposure, notwithstanding the normal audiometric testing results at the time. P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Rutkin, 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.