Citation Nr: 21069954 Decision Date: 11/22/21 Archive Date: 11/22/21 DOCKET NO. 18-32 481 DATE: November 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1961 to November 1965. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a November 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that a hearing was scheduled for the Veteran on November 7, 2019, and again on July 19, 2021, but the Veteran did not attend these hearings. A July 14, 2021 statement from the Veteran's representative indicates that they have been unable to get in touch with the Veteran and requested that his hearing be postponed. This request was made less than two weeks prior to the scheduled hearing and the Board finds that good cause has not been shown. Notification letters were mailed to the Veteran's last known address and were not returned as undeliverable. There is no indication that the Veteran was unaware of the upcoming hearing and neither the Veteran nor his representative have not argued that the notice was deficient. The Veteran's representative submitted an Appellate Brief containing arguments pertaining to the claim after the Veteran failed to report for the second hearing. Because the request to postpone the hearing was untimely and good cause for the postponement is not shown, the request to reschedule for a third time is denied. His hearing request, therefore, is deemed withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d) (2020). The Board acknowledges the Veteran's request to have his tinnitus included on this appeal. See October 2021 Appellate Brief. The April 2017 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) did not appeal the tinnitus denial, even under a liberal reading of the document, and thus the Board does not have jurisdiction over this matter. The Veteran is encouraged to file a claim for tinnitus on the appropriate VA-promulgated form. This appeal is advanced on the docket (AOD) due to the Veteran's advanced age. 38 U.S.C. § 7107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c). Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran contends that he experiences bilateral hearing loss because of noise exposure in service. See April 2017 NOD. The Veteran was afforded an VA examination to determine the nature of his bilateral hearing loss in October 2016. In the accompanying report, the examiner compared the results of the Veteran's enlistment audiogram with the audiogram conducted at separation from service and determined that the Veteran's hearing loss is less likely as not due to in-service noise exposure. In the October 2021 Appellant Brief, the Veteran's representative referenced an article, "Exposure to low level of jet-propulsion fuel impairs brainstem encoding of stimulus intensity." According to the representative, the article indicates that "results indicate that jet fuel exposure may exert consequences on auditory function that may be more widespread and insidious than what was previously shown." Because the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) during active service was jet engine mechanic an additional remand is needed to obtain an addendum opinion. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: Arrange for an appropriate health care provider to review the Veteran's claims file and provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the diagnosed bilateral hearing loss had its clinical onset during service or is due to an event or incident of the Veteran's period of active service. In so opining, the examiner must consider and discuss the following: i) The article referred by the Veteran's representative in October 2021 indicating that "jet fuel exposure may exert consequences on auditory function that may be more widespread and insidious than what was previously shown." The examiner's attention is also drawn to: i) Hearing conservation data from June 1964. ii) The Veteran's MOS while on active duty was jet engine mechanical. If the reviewing health care provider finds that physical examination or telehealth interview of the Veteran and/or diagnostic testing is necessary, such should be accomplished. A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. The clinician is advised that under the applicable law, the absence of in-service evidence of a hearing loss disability is not always fatal to a service connection claim. Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). The examiner should address the likelihood of delayed onset hearing loss due to noise exposure during service. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Oquendo, L., 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.