Citation Nr: 21006953 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-44 334 DATE: February 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1964 to December 1967, and he received the National Defense Service Medal. In April 2019, the Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran appealed the Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a May 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the claims to the Board for development and readjudication consistent with the Court’s decision. In light of the Court’s Memorandum Decision, the Board finds that additional development is required to properly decide the Veteran’s claims. Specifically, there is no adequate nexus opinion of record that considers whether the Veteran’s current disabilities are related to the multiple ear cysts that he experienced in service. See February 2015 STR, p. 14. Accordingly, the claims are remanded. See Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain a VA opinion that addresses the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. Any indicated evaluations, studies, and tests deemed necessary by the examiner should be accomplished. The entire claims file should be made available to the examiner designated to provide an opinion, and the examination report should include a discussion of the Veteran’s documented medical history and assertions. After eliciting a detailed history of the Veteran’s disabilities, the examiner should offer comments, an opinion, and a supporting rationale that address the following: (a) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was incurred in, aggravated by, or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s active duty service? In providing this opinion, the examiner should discuss what impact, if any, the Veteran’s in-service exposure to hazardous noise has had on his current hearing loss as well as his recurrent cysts on his ears during service. See February 2015 STR, p. 14; August 2017 Form 9, p. 1; April 2016 NOD, p. 2. (b) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s tinnitus was incurred in, aggravated by, or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s active duty service? In providing this opinion, the examiner should discuss what impact, if any, the Veteran’s in-service exposure to hazardous noise has had on his current tinnitus as well as his recurrent cysts on his ears during service. See February 2015 STR, p. 14; August 2017 Form 9, p. 1; April 2016 NOD, p. 2. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be considered. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, the examiner must provide a reason for doing so. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board W.V. Walker, 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.