Citation Nr: 21006993 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 14-15 832A DATE: February 8, 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 Army from April 1982 to April 1985. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2011 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida. In June 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board video-conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the record. The issue on appeal was previously before the Board in October 2019 and April 2020, when it was remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. On both occasions, after taking further action, the AOJ confirmed and continued the prior denial and returned the case to the Board. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, further development is necessary to ensure substantial compliance with the prior remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (2011). Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran has asserted that his current hearing loss is due to in-service noise exposure, to include as a result of his military occupational specialty (MOS) of infantry and exposure to grenades, rifles, tanks, and helicopters. See January 2020 Statement in Support of Claim. Of note, he has a current hearing loss disability as defined by VA regulation. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The April 2020 Board remand asked the AOJ to obtain a VA medical opinion as to whether it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran had a hearing loss disability in either ear and, if so, whether such disability had its onset in, or was otherwise attributable to, his period of active service, to include in-service exposure to noise. In so doing, the examiner was asked to discuss an August 1982 service treatment record which reflected that the Veteran was seen for complaints of pain in his ear. An October 2020 VA examination report is of record which contains a medical opinion unfavorable to the Veteran’s claim. The examiner acknowledged that a 1982 audiogram revealed hearing loss, bilaterally, and that the Veteran’s MOS had a high probability of noise exposure. However, the examiner stated that the April 1982 entrance audiogram and February 1985 separation audiogram were both normal; as such, it was less likely as not that the Veteran’s current hearing loss was caused by or a result of an event in military service. In so doing, however, other than noting normal hearing at separation, the examiner provided no substantive explanation as to why the Veteran’s MOS and/or in-service exposures or the August 1982 findings were not etiologically related to his current hearing loss. Accordingly, the Board finds that additional development is warranted. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Arrange for the claims file to be reviewed by the VA examiner who prepared the October 2020 VA audiology report (or a suitable substitute if that examiner is unavailable) for the purpose of preparing an addendum opinion. If the examiner finds that another examination of the Veteran is required, one should be undertaken. After reviewing the record, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., whether it is 50 percent or more probable) that the Veteran has a hearing loss disability in either ear that had its onset in, or is otherwise attributable to, his period of active service, to include in-service exposure to noise. In doing so, the examiner should consider and discuss the Veteran’s MOS of infantry and his claimed exposure to grenades, rifles, tanks, and helicopters. The examiner should also provide a substantive explanation as to why the previously referenced 1982 audiogram reflecting a bilateral hearing loss is or is not etiologically related to his current hearing loss. Specifically, the examiner should address whether the 1982 audiogram and associated clinical records demonstrate evidence of in-service disease or injury, to include acoustic trauma, and, if so, the likelihood that such in-service disease or injury has contributed to the current hearing loss. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 2. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Kettler, 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.