Citation Nr: 21067906 Decision Date: 11/08/21 Archive Date: 11/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-50 851 DATE: November 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, to include as secondary to service-connected tinnitus, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1971 to November 1972, with an additional period of active duty for training from May 1970 to October 1970. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2018 and June 2021, the Board remanded the case for additional development and it now returns for further appellate review. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, to include as secondary to service-connected tinnitus. In the June 2021 remand, the Board found that, in rendering her opinion that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was less likely as not related to military noise exposure, the September 2019 VA examiner, as relevant, did not address a July 1990 field study submitted by the Veteran in January 2016 and October 2016. Thus, the Board remanded the claim in order to obtain an addendum opinion addressing such matter. In this regard, the remand directed that, in rendering an opinion, the examiner must comment on the aforementioned study. Thereafter, an addendum opinion was obtained in July 2021 from the same VA examiner. At such time, she again opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was less likely as not related to military noise exposure. However, while the examiner reported that she thoroughly reviewed all pertinent records associated with the Veteran's claims file, to include the field study provided by him (Noise Exposure of Naval Communication Station Radio Operators, 1990), she did not comment upon it despite being directed to do so in the June 2021 remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Thus, another remand is necessary in order to obtain an addendum opinion that complies with such directive. Id. Furthermore, throughout the appeal, the Veteran has alleged that his bilateral hearing loss is aggravated by his now service-connected tinnitus. However, to date no opinion addressing such theory of entitlement has been obtained. Thus, the examiner should also address such matter in offering the foregoing addendum opinion on remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Forward the record, to include a copy of this remand, to the VA examiner who provided the September 2019 and July 2021 opinions addressing the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss, or an appropriate clinician if she is unavailable, to obtain an addendum opinion. After reviewing the record, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely a snot (i.e., a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss had its onset in, or is otherwise related to, his military service, to include his military occupational specialty of Cryptographic Technician Radioman, or manifested within one year of his service discharge in November 1972, i.e., by November 1973. In offering such opinion, the examiner must consider and comment on the July 1990 field study submitted by the Veteran in January 2016 and October 2016, reflecting that manual Morse code operators in the Navy faced a significant probability of exposure to hazardous noise level. The examiner is advised that the lack of medical records reflecting in-service complaints of hearing loss, or demonstrating a continuity of care after service, cannot form the sole basis of a negative opinion. The examiner is also requested to offer an opinion as to whether the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is caused or aggravated by his service-connected tinnitus. For any aggravation found, the examiner should state, to the best of his or her ability, the baseline of symptomatology and the amount, quantified if possible, of aggravation beyond the baseline symptomatology. A rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Koria B. Stanton, 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.