Citation Nr: 21066693 Decision Date: 11/01/21 Archive Date: 11/01/21 DOCKET NO. 13-05 581 DATE: November 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C, to include as secondary to service-connected hyperhidrosis, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1970 to May 1973. The matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from November 2009 and April 2017 rating decisions by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). By way of history, a November 2017 Board decision reopened the claim for service connection for hepatitis C and remanded the matter for further development. Subsequently, the Board remanded the claim for service connection for hepatitis C again in June 2019. At that time, the Board also remanded the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss for the issuance of a statement of the case (SOC), pursuant to Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). In a July 2020 decision, the Board, in pertinent part, denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and hepatitis C. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a June 2021 Order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) that vacated the portion of the Board decision that denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and hepatitis C and remanded the claims to the Board for action consistent with the JMPR. Hepatitis C In the June 2021 JMPR, the Court found that the Board erred in relying on an inadequate December 2019 VA medical opinion with respect as to whether the Veteran's hepatitis C was aggravated by his service-connected hyperhidrosis. Specifically, the Court found that that examiner's rationale indicated that he only considered causation and did not adequately address the issue of aggravation. Accordingly, the Court directed the Board to obtain a medical opinion as to whether the Veteran's hepatitis C was aggravated by his service-connected hyperidrosis. In compliance with the June 2021 JMPR, the matter is therefore remanded to obtain an addendum medical opinion. Bilateral Hearing Loss In the June 2021 JMPR, the Court found that the April 2017 VA medical opinion was inadequate as the examiner did not address delayed onset hearing loss and did not appear to address the Veteran's conceded military noise exposure. Thus, in compliance with the June 2021 JMPR, the matter is remanded to obtain an addendum medical opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records, and any identified private treatment records. 2. Thereafter, forward the claims file to a qualified medical professional to obtain an addendum medical opinion to the December 2019 VA opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's hepatitis C. If the examiner determines that another physical examination is necessary, such an examination should be scheduled. Following a review of the claims file, the examiner is asked to address the following: Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's hepatitis C was aggravated by his service-connected hyperhidrosis? Please explain why or why not. If the examiner finds that the disability was aggravated by his service-connected disability, the examiner must identify the baseline level of the disability that existed before aggravation by the service-connected disability occurred. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions expressed. If the examiner is unable to provide an opinion without resort to mere speculation, an explanation as to why this is so should be provided and any additional evidence that would be necessary before an opinion could be rendered should be identified. 3. After completing directive #1, forward the claims file to a qualified medical professional to obtain an addendum medical opinion to the April 2017 VA opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. If the examiner determines that another physical examination is necessary, such an examination should be scheduled. Following a review of the claims file, the examiner is asked to opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is etiologically related to service. Please explain why or why not. In providing the requested opinion, the examiner is asked to consider the Veteran's conceded in-service noise exposure. The examiner is also asked to address delayed onset hearing loss. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions expressed. If the examiner is unable to provide an opinion without resort to speculation, an explanation as to why this is so should be provided and any additional evidence that would be necessary before an opinion could be rendered should be identified. S. HENEKS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Robinson, 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.