Citation Nr: 21073616 Decision Date: 12/09/21 Archive Date: 12/09/21 DOCKET NO. 19-28 718 DATE: December 9, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from May 1964 to December 1987. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from the June 2018 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss is related to his military service. In his substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a hearing before a Veteran's Law Judge of the Board. See VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals, received September 2019. However, in April 2020, the Veteran's representative submitted a form indicating that he wished to withdraw his hearing request. Under 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (e), a request for hearing may be withdrawn by an appellant at any time before the hearing. Therefore, the Board finds that the hearing request has been withdrawn, and will proceed with appellate review. In June 2018, the Veteran underwent a VA audio examination. The examiner noted that the Veteran is diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. However, the examiner opined that the Veteran's condition is less likely than not related to his military service. The examiner's rationale was that the Veteran's enlistment and last service examinations showed no significant threshold shifting in either ear or hearing loss per any VA standard for either ear. In July 2019, an addendum opinion was obtained. The examiner stated again that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is less likely than not related to his military service. The examiner stated that there were no permanent threshold shifts during the Veteran's service. The examiner referenced temporary shifting on September 1 and 3, 1976 that was resolved by 1977. The examiner concluded that the Veteran was discharged from active duty with normal hearing acuity and that there is no evidence of permanent threshold shifting in either ear. However, in April 2020, the Veteran submitted medical literature linking cochlear nerve degeneration after temporary noise induced hearing loss. Additionally, the Board notes that a VA examiner must offer a full rationale for all opinions given and should not rely on the absence of evidence of in-service treatment or injury in the Veteran's service treatment records as a basis for any given opinion. Finally, neither of the VA opinions consider the Veteran's frequent reports of hearing loss at in-service medical examinations, (March 1970 and September 1976 hearing conservation data). Additionally, in September 1976, the Veteran was placed on a no noise hazardous duty for 30 days due to neurosensory hearing loss discovered at the September 1976 hearing examination. On remand, the examiner must consider this evidence. Therefore, the Board finds that an addendum opinion should be obtained that considers the medical literature provided by the Veteran, as well as the fact that it is conceded that the Veteran's military occupational specialty as an aircraft mechanic subjected him to noise exposure. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including the medical literature submitted linking cochlear nerve degeneration after temporary noise induced hearing loss. The Veteran's in-service noise exposure is conceded. The examiner must consider the Veteran's frequent reports of hearing loss at in-service medical examinations (March 1970 and September 1976 hearing conservation data) as well as the fact that Veteran was placed on a no noise hazardous duty for 30 days due to neurosensory hearing loss discovered at the Veteran's September 1976 hearing examination. All opinions provided must be thoroughly explained and an adequate rationale for any conclusions reached must be provided. The examiner should not rely on the absence of evidence of in-service treatment or injury in the Veteran's service treatment records as a basis for any given opinion. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the medical professional should state and explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. 2. Following completion of the above, and a review of any additional evidence received, the RO should also undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion which considers any newly received evidence. B. G. LeMoine Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Mountford, 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.