Citation Nr: 21006283 Decision Date: 02/03/21 Archive Date: 02/03/21 DOCKET NO. 10-20 974 DATE: February 3, 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 Air Force from March 1973 to March 1977. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2009 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Buffalo, New York. In May 2011, the Veteran and his wife testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a Board hearing held at the RO. A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the record. This claim has an extensive history before the Board. Most recently, this claim was remanded in August 2020 for an addendum opinion in compliance with a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). As discussed below, there was not substantial compliance with the Board’s remand directives, thus, an additional remand is required. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s previous remand directives regarding the issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. Another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In its August 2020 remand, the Board directed the AOJ to contact the examiner who conducted the December 2019 VA audiology examination and provide a copy of their resume or curriculum vitae (CV). The AOJ was directed to associate it with the record and provide the Veteran and his represenative a copy of it. The Board also directed the AOJ to advise the Veteran and provide reasons if a resume/CV was unavailable. The AOJ did not provide the resume/CV of the December 2019 VA examiner or provide a reason that it was unavailable. As the Veteran has raised the issue of the competency of the examiner and requested the examiner’s resume/CV, the Veteran has the right, absent unusual circumstances, to the curriculum vitae and other information about qualifications of a medical examiner as part of VA’s mandated duty to assist. Francway v. Wilkie, 940 F.3d 1304, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Further, the Veteran contends that his VA examination was inadequate as it did not adequately address the 1985 statement from the Veteran’s physician that he had complained of hearing loss when he first saw the Veteran in April 1978. The Veteran further challenged the examiner’s opinion as it listed numerous other possible etiologies for the Veteran’s hearing loss, but did not discuss whether any of them actually applied to the facts of the Veteran’s case. The Board agrees that the November 2020 VA examiner did not adequately address the Veteran’s lay statements and the 1985 statement provided by the Veteran’s physician regarding a 1978 report of hearing loss, shortly after the Veteran’s separation from service. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). The Board also notes that the Veteran is service connected for tinnitus arising out of the same reported acoustic trauma. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the examiner who conducted the December 2019 VA examination and request that they provide a copy of their resume/CV. Upon receipt of such, associate it with the record and provide the Veteran and his representative a copy thereof. If the requested resume/CV is not obtainable, the Veteran should be so advised and the reasons for such should be noted in the record. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician (other than the one who rendered the December 2019 and October 2020 opinions) regarding whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to his military occupational specialty in aircraft structural maintenance or proximately due to a service-connected disability, including tinnitus, or aggravated beyond its natural progression by a service-connected disability. The examiner must specifically address the 1985 private treatment note indicating that the Veteran had been seen in 1978 for various complaints, to include a decrease in hearing. The examiner must specifically consider and address the additional findings of the 2006 IOM report regarding young adults with slight noise-induced high-frequency hearing loss, which according to the definition provided in the report, the Veteran manifested at discharge from service. The examiner’s opinion must specifically address the arguments in the Veteran’s June and December 2020 briefs and the medical literature cited in the August 2020 Board remand. In rendering the requested opinion and rationale, the examiner must note the fact that the service treatment records do not document hearing loss disability for VA purposes is not fatal to the Veteran’s claim and cannot be the only basis by which to reject a possible nexus to service. All opinions must be supported by a complete and thorough rationale. The AOJ is also directed to request that the current examiner provide a copy of their resume/CV and associate with the record. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M.D. Taylor, 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.