Citation Nr: 21072695 Decision Date: 12/06/21 Archive Date: 12/06/21 DOCKET NO. 16-08 154 DATE: December 6, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss ("BHL") is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty in the United States Air Force from April 1976 to April 1980. The Veteran's Air Force occupational specialty was aircraft mechanic. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from the May 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2018, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The Veteran's claims file contains a copy of the hearing transcript. In a January 2021 decision, the Board denied service connection for BHL. In pertinent part, the Board found that the weight of competent and credible evidence failed to show that BHL was incurred in, aggravated by, or otherwise attributable to, service or that BHL had onset within one year of the Veteran's separation from service. In August 2021, the Veteran appealed the January 2021 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran's Claims (Court), which resulted in a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR). The parties to the JMR found that the Board had erred in assigning diminished probative weight to a November 2020 private (audiological) examination report, by failing to consider that the private consultant had referred to and considered in-service audiograms and/or the Veteran's endorsement of BHL 4 years after separation. The Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its "lessened" probative assessment of the afore-noted private report. In order to comply with the provisions of the JMR and consider the Veteran's audiological history and his BHL in sufficient detail to reconcile differences in the medical/audiological evidence of record, the Board finds that an VA audiological addendum opinion is necessary. Ardison v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 405, 407 (1994); see also Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991) (holding that VA adjudicators are not free to ignore or disregard the medical conclusions of a medical clinician and are not permitted to substitute their own judgment on a medical matter). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Contact the Veteran and his representative to ascertain whether there are outstanding private records related to BHL. If affirmatively indicated, prepare releases, obtain the records, and associate the records with the claims file. The RO must make two attempts to obtain these relevant records unless the first attempt demonstrates that further attempts would be futile. Should VA not obtain any private records (as indicated), the RO must (1) inform the Veteran of the unobtained records (2) tell the Veteran steps taken to obtain them, and (3) tell the Veteran that the claim will be adjudicated without the records. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2)(B). 2. Obtain any and all outstanding VA treatment records, progress notes and associate the records with the claims file. 3. Arrange for an addendum with an appropriate VA audiologist. The audiologist must review the claims file and indicate a review in the opinion. The audiologist must address all reports of symptoms (both lay and medical). The Board requests that the audiologist reconcile the differences between the November 2020 private report and the VA audiological reports and addendum of record. Here, the Board asks that the audiologist address the November 2020 consultant's discussion of the claims file and the Veteran's lay endorsement of onset of BHL in 1984 (4 years after separation). The Board encourages the audiologist to seek guidance from IOM studies and treatises addressing noise exposure and post-exposure or "deferred" BHL. 4. Upon completion of the above directed tasks, the audiologist should respond to the following inquiry. a. Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or more) that the Veteran's BHL was incurred in, caused by, or aggravated by, or otherwise attributable to, service (including noise exposure associated with an MOS of aircraft mechanic)? The Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history. Such reports, including those of continuity and functional limitations, must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. Should the audiologist reject the Veteran's reports, she/he must provide an explanation for such rejection. The audiologist must provide complete and clear rationales for the conclusions reached. The audiologist should provide explanations that consider the record and pertinent medical principles. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. J. Komins, 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.