Citation Nr: 21072751 Decision Date: 12/06/21 Archive Date: 12/06/21 DOCKET NO. 17-36 119 DATE: December 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from March 1978 to March 1981. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2018 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was previously before the Board in April 2020, at which time the issue currently before the Board was remanded for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for appellate review. The issue of entitlement to service connection service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected disability, was also remanded by the Board in April 2020. However, in an April 2021 rating decision, the Veteran was granted entitlement to service connection for depressive disorder, somatic symptom disorder, with alcohol use. There is no indication from the record that the Veteran has disagreed with the rating or effective date assigned in that decision. Therefore, that decision constitutes a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal and the Board has limited its consideration accordingly. In the April 2020 Board remand, VA was directed to provide the Veteran with a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his bilateral hearing loss. Review of the record shows that the directed opinion was obtained in April 2021. At an April 2021 VA examination, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran's hearing loss is less likely than not incurred in or caused by active service. Additionally, the examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is less likely than not proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's service connected conditions. However, the examiner failed to provide a rationale that addressed why the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is not caused or aggravated by his service-connected disabilities. Rather, the examiner repeated the same rationale as given for the direct service connection opinion. In May 2021 and August 2021 addendum opinions, the VA examiner still failed to provide a rationale for his secondary service connection opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. The Board finds that the development conducted does not adequately comply with the April 2020 Board remand directives. Compliance with a remand is not discretionary, and failure to comply with the terms of a remand necessitates remand for corrective action. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Therefore, the Board finds that another opinion should be obtained in order to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Identify and obtain any outstanding, pertinent VA and private treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician addressing the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed bilateral hearing loss disability. The examiner must review the claims file and note that review in the report. The examiner should address the following questions: (a.) Is the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) caused by any of his service-connected disabilities, to include tinnitus? (b.) Is the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) aggravated by (worsened beyond natural progression) any of his service-connected disabilities, to include tinnitus? A detailed explanation is required to support the opinion. A complete and thorough rationale must be provided for any opinions expressed with consideration given to all evidence of record. Norah Patrick Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board I. Umez-Eronini, 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.