Citation Nr: 21006744 Decision Date: 02/05/21 Archive Date: 02/05/21 DOCKET NO. 16-11 813 DATE: February 5, 2021 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from November 1967 to November 1969. Pursuant to a joint motion for remand (JMR) filed by VA and the Veteran, in August 2020 the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) vacated the Board’s August 2019 decision and remanded it to the Board for compliance with its instructions. Before the CAVC, the parties agreed that the Board relied on an inadequate medical opinion. Pursuant to the JMR, the matter is remanded for further development. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. BACKGROUND FOR RO ADJUDICATOR: This is remand pursuant to a Court vacatur and remand. The July 2014 VA medical opinion is inadequate to resolve the appeal. The examiner did not provide a factually-based explanation for her opinion. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007). An addendum opinion is needed to comply with the Court’s remand instructions. The directives follow. 2. Return the claims file to the July 2014 VA examiner and request she re-review the claims file and respond to the inquiries below. If the examiner is not available, arrange for another appropriate VA examiner to provide an addendum medical opinion to assist in determining the relationship between the Veteran’s current bilateral sensorineural hearing loss diagnosis and his service, to include his recognized exposure to acoustic trauma. All appropriate tests, studies and consultations should be accomplished, including a new medical examination if necessary, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail in the narrative portion of the examination report. A rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions rendered. Based upon a review of the relevant evidence of record, history provided by the Veteran, and sound medical principles, the VA examiner should provide the following opinions: a) Was the Veteran’s current sensorineural hearing loss incurred in service or caused by an in-service injury, event or illness, to include exposure to acoustic trauma? b) Does the Veteran demonstrate continuity of hearing loss since service? The opinion must address the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset of impaired hearing during service and any relevant post-service medical history. The examiner must review the entire record in conjunction with rendering the requested opinions. IN ADDITION TO ANY RECORDS THAT ARE GENERATED BECAUSE OF THIS REMAND, the VA examiner’s attention is drawn to the following: * The Veteran’s November 1969 separation examination indicates hearing within normal limits. See “STR – Medical,” received May 14, 2014. * In an April 2005 screening the examiner noted the Veteran was hard of hearing. See “CAPRI,” received September 17, 2014, page 201 of 202. * July 2014 VA medical examination report and opinion. See “C&P Exam,” received August 14, 2014. * March 2019 Board hearing testimony when the Veteran testified that his impaired hearing began during service. See “Hearing Transcript,” received March 25, 2019. * May 2019 private audiological examination report. The Veteran reported noise exposure during service and a long history of hearing problems. The examiner noted the Veteran worked at a lumber mill as well as in the construction industry after service, and that the Veteran reported he received hearing protection at his post-military workplaces. See “Medical Treatment Record – Non-Governmental Facility,” received June 18, 2019. * The Veteran’s exposure to acoustic trauma is recognized. See “Hearing Transcript,” received March 25, 2019. * August 2020 Joint Motion for Remand. See “CAVC Decision,” received August 31, 2020. A thorough explanation must be provided for the opinion rendered. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, s/he should expressly indicate this and provide supporting rationale as to why the opinion cannot be made without resorting to speculation. The examiner is advised that hearing loss need not be shown in service for service connection to be established; rather, service connection may be established for a current hearing loss disability with evidence that the current disability was causally related to service. The examiner should schedule a new examination only if necessary to provide an adequate opinion. THE EXAMINER IS ADVISED THAT BY LAW, THE MERE STATEMENT THAT THE CLAIMS FOLDER WAS REVIEWED, AND/OR THE EXAMINER HAS EXPERTISE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO FIND THE EXAMINATION/OPINION SUFFICIENT. 3. Following the review and any additional development deemed necessary, readjudicate the claim. Should the claim not be granted in its entirety, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and forward the claim to the Board for adjudication. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West 2014). Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Anwar, Attorney-Advisor 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.