Citation Nr: 21006757 Decision Date: 02/05/21 Archive Date: 02/05/21 DOCKET NO. 16-53 307A DATE: February 5, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for bilateral hearing loss. Service connection for tinnitus. REASONS FOR REMAND In October 2019, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) reopened and denied the Veteran’s claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. He appealed the denials to the Veterans Claims Court and in August 2020, the Court Clerk granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), which vacated the Board’s October 2019 decision and remanded the claims to the Board for action in compliance with the JMPR. According to the JMPR, the February 2009 VA addendum medical opinion which the Board relied on in its October 2019 decision was inadequate in that it failed to explain why the Veteran’s normal hearing at separation precluded a nexus between the current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus and inservice noise exposure. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Direct the claims file, to include a copy of this remand, to a clinician in order to obtain an addendum medical opinion. The clinician is asked to review the claims file and provide the following opinion: • Regardless of the lack of bilateral hearing loss shown at service separation, is hearing loss at least as likely as not (50% probability or greater) etiologically related to in-service noise exposure (i.e., did in-service noise exposure cause the Veteran to progressively lose his hearing over the years)? • Regardless of the lack of tinnitus shown at service separation, is tinnitus at least as likely as not (50% probability or greater) etiologically related to in-service noise exposure (i.e., did in-service noise exposure cause the Veteran to progressively develop ringing in his ears over the years)? The clinician is asked to discuss the Veteran’s in-service noise exposure, 37-year post-service employment history as a factory worker without hearing protection, and post-service employment records showing audio testing. A discussion of delayed-onset hearing loss would also be helpful to the Board. A thorough rationale must be provided for all opinions expressed.   2. Should the clinician determine that an examination is necessary in order to provide the requested opinions, one should be scheduled. L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Redman, 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.