Citation Nr: 21072696
Decision Date: 12/06/21	Archive Date: 12/06/21

DOCKET NO. 15-21 376
DATE: December 6, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss of the left ear, to include as secondary to service-connected tinnitus, is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran had active service from November 1966 to August 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) from an April 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

The Veteran requested a hearing before the Board.  The hearing was conducted in August 2021 by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript is associated with the claims file.

Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss of the left ear, to include as secondary to service-connected tinnitus.

The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for hearing loss of the left ear. Exposure to acoustic trauma has been conceded. See, e.g., May 2015 statement of the case. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in February 2014, at which time audiological testing demonstrated a left ear hearing loss disability, as defined by VA regulations. 

Of note, since the 2014 VA examination, which was conducted more than seven years ago, VA treatment records indicate that the Veteran has had several additional VA audiograms, with treatment notes stating, "complete test results in ROES." On remand, the audiograms in "ROES" should be obtained and associated with the claims file. 

Furthermore, the Board notes the February 2014 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's hearing loss was less likely than not due to service, stating there was evidence that the Veteran did not suffer hearing loss during service; however, the Veteran testified during the August 2021 Board hearing that when he was exposed to acoustic trauma during service while in combat, he experienced temporary hearing loss during service and also gradual hearing loss that occurred post service. On remand, a VA medical opinion should be obtained that considers the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset and occurrence of his hearing loss.

Finally, the Board notes that during the pendency of this appeal, the Veteran was granted service connection for tinnitus. See April 2019 rating decision. On remand, a medical opinion should be obtained regarding whether the Veteran's hearing loss is proximately due to or aggravated by his service-connected tinnitus.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain and associate with the claims file all updated treatment records, to include all audiograms not currently associated with the file that are located in "ROES."

2. Obtain an addendum opinion for the Veteran's claimed left ear hearing loss. If deemed necessary by the examiner, afford the Veteran a VA examination for his claimed left ear hearing loss. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail. The Veteran's claims folder must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination.

The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's left ear hearing loss is causally or etiologically due to service OR is proximately due to or aggravated (beyond a natural progression) by his service-connected tinnitus.

In providing this opinion, the examiner should acknowledge and discuss any lay evidence of a continuity of symptomatology, to include the Veteran's testimony in August 2021 that he experienced temporary hearing loss immediately after exposure to combat noise during service, as well as a delayed onset of hearing loss post service.

All opinions should be supported by a clear rationale, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board.

 

 

TANYA SMITH

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	L. Andersen, 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.