Citation Nr: 21006355
Decision Date: 02/03/21	Archive Date: 02/03/21

DOCKET NO. 19-12 434
DATE: February 3, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, to include as secondary to service-connected tinnitus is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from May 1958 to August 1963 in the United States Army.

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, to include as secondary to service-connected tinnitus 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).

Specifically, the examiner who offered the September 2020 VA addendum medical opinion did not offer an adequate secondary opinion.  The examiner stated that she has “previously opined twice” that tinnitus is not secondary to hearing loss and “cannot opine to hearing loss aggravating tinnitus as I did not provide a positive opinion for either…[i]n addition, it is scientifically impossible for tinnitus to aggravate hearing loss.”  First, the Board notes that the requested opinion was whether the service-connected tinnitus causes or aggravates the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. Additionally, the statement that it is “scientifically impossible” for tinnitus to aggravate hearing loss is inadequate without further supporting rationale. 

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1.  Obtain an addendum opinion from a different examiner who offered the September 2020 opinion, if possible, regarding whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not proximately due to or aggravated by service-connected tinnitus.

Copies of all pertinent records must be made available to the examiner for review.  A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions offered.

2.  Confirm that the VA medical opinion provided comports with this remand, specifically that the standard for the secondary aggravation opinion is any increase in disability, not the standard of beyond the natural progression as noted on the examination form itself.  If not, get an addendum.

 

 

M.E. Larkin

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	P.S. McLeod

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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.