Citation Nr: 21069356 Decision Date: 11/18/21 Archive Date: 11/18/21 DOCKET NO. 18-13 265 DATE: November 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1978 to October 1982. In November 2021, a Board hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). Entitlement to service connection bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are remanded. In December 2017, the Veteran underwent a VA examination to evaluate the etiology of his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and recurrent tinnitus. However, instead of providing an etiological opinion, the examiner stated that, without complete audiometric records from when the Veteran was in the military, she could not determine whether there was aggravation of hearing or acoustic trauma in service and, therefore, could not assess the relationship between the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss/tinnitus and his military noise exposure without resorting to mere speculation. Notably, the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) reflect that he had a hearing loss disability for VA purposes on his enlistment examination for the right ear only. Therefore, instead of addressing whether there was aggravation of left ear hearing loss, the examiner should have addressed whether the left ear hearing loss was otherwise etiologically related to service. Moreover, the examiner did not consider or discuss the Veteran's pertinent STRs from June 1982 showing complaints for ear problems and left ear hearing loss. Consequently, the Board finds the December 2017 VA medical opinion to be insufficient for rating purposes. Accordingly, remand is warranted for a new VA medical opinion consistent with the directives herein. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain a VA examination and opinion from an appropriate examiner to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The claims folder (including a copy of this remand) must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner as part of the examination. All indicated tests should be accomplished and all clinical findings reported in detail. a) The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's left ear hearing loss and/or tinnitus had its onset in service, within one year of separation from service, or is otherwise related to his active duty service, to include his conceded noise exposure from his duty military occupational specialty (MOS) as an aircraft electrician. b) The examiner must also determine whether there is clear and unmistakable (obvious, manifest, or undebatable) evidence that the Veteran's preexisting right ear hearing loss was not aggravated beyond the natural progression of the condition by his active duty service, to include his conceded noise exposure from his duty MOS as an aircraft electrician. In rendering the above opinions, the examiner should note that the Board has already determined that the Veteran DID NOT have a left ear hearing loss disability for VA purposes upon entrance to service and the examiner must consider and discuss the service treatment records from June 1982 indicating that the Veteran complained of hearing loss in his left ear. The examiner is further advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms/history and that such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If his reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. (Continued on the next page) A rationale for all requested opinions shall be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Metzner, Paul 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.