Citation Nr: 21073360 Decision Date: 12/08/21 Archive Date: 12/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-19 587 DATE: December 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from August 1968 to August 1972. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Bilateral Foot Disorder The Veteran contends his painful feet, diagnosed as generalized metatarsalgia secondary to a flexible foot deformity (midtarsal pronation), are due to his many hours on patrol as a security policeman in service. To date, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination. On remand, a VA examination and opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral foot disorder should be obtained. Bilateral Hearing Loss and Tinnitus The Veteran claims his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his conceded in-service noise exposure. In April 2012, the Veteran underwent a VA audiological examination. The examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not related to his in-service noise exposure, as he had hearing within normal limits, bilaterally, at service entrance and separation. Such opinion is contrary to the Court's holding in Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155 (1993). The Board notes that the Veteran does not have to show hearing loss at the time of discharge in order to establish service connection. Id.; see also Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). Regarding tinnitus, the Board notes that the examiner found that such was due to the Veteran's hearing loss, but did not render an opinion as to whether tinnitus was directly due to the Veteran's in-service noise exposure. Based on these deficiencies, an addendum opinion is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral foot disorder. For any diagnosed bilateral foot disorder, opine whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) related to service, to include many hours on foot patrol, serving as a security police officer. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and any such statements by the Veteran must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinions. The absence of clinical evidence of treatment for the claimed disorders in the Veteran's service treatment records or for years after service cannot, standing alone, serve as the basis for a negative opinion. Any opinions expressed must be supported by a full rationale. 3. Obtain an opinion regarding the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. If the selected clinician determines that an examination is necessary to respond to this request, such examination should be scheduled. Following a review of the record, and examination of the Veteran if deemed necessary, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss or tinnitus had its onset in, or is otherwise related to, his military service, to include his acknowledged in-service noise exposure. Additionally, the basis for a negative opinion must not be based solely on the lack of evidence of hearing loss in the Veteran's service treatment records or a lack of medical records demonstrating a continuity of care after service. All findings must be reported in detail and all opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale. If any of the above issues cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A.Z., 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.