Citation Nr: 21007047 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 15-03 379 DATE: February 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Introduction The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army during the Peacetime, from September 1978 to December 1980. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2013 Rating Decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. When this matter came before the Board previously in October 2018, it was remanded for additional development, specifically, to afford the Veteran a VA audiological examination. The additional development has been completed, and the matter returns to the Board for further appellate review. The Board observes that the Veteran perfected a separate appeal for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus in August 2020. However, that issue has not yet been certified to the Board by the RO and, thus, is not activated at the Board. As a result, the Board will not take jurisdiction over the issue at this juncture, but it will be the subject of a subsequent Board decision, if otherwise in order. Finally, while further delay is regrettable, remand for additional development in substantial compliance with the Board’s prior remand directives is necessary before the matter can be decided. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran asserts that service connection is warranted for a bilateral hearing loss disability. A review of, inter alia, a January 2013 VA examination shows he has been diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. For the following reasons, the Board finds that remand is again required to ensure substantial compliance with the prior remand directives. See Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. Following the Board’s prior remand in October 2018, the Veteran underwent a VA audiological examination in July 2019. According to the VA examiner, the Veteran’s right ear hearing loss clearly and unmistakably existed prior to military service and was aggravated beyond its natural progression by an in-service injury, event, or illness. However, by way of rationale, the VA examiner merely noted “[n]o change at separation.” As such, it is unclear whether the VA examiner’s opinion regarding aggravation is correctly reported and, instead, appears contradictory in nature. Finally, the VA examiner’s opinion erroneously addresses a pre-existing right ear hearing loss, as the July 1978 Report of Medical Examination notes left ear hearing loss at 500 Hz. The Board finds the VA examiner’s opinions inadequate for determining service connection. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). Further, the Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) dated July 2020 is silent as to the VA examiner’s opinion regarding aggravation. Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination with an audiologist, other than Dr. D.W., possessing the necessary expertise to fully assess and provide an opinion regarding the nature, severity, and likely etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral sensorineural hearing loss for the period on appeal. The examiner must obtain a full history from the Veteran. It should be noted the Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, such as observable symptomology. All pertinent symptomology, including any continuity of symptomology since military service, must be reported in detail. Based upon a review of all pertinent documents in the Veteran’s claims file, including medical records, lay statements, and the examination results, the examiner must opine as to: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s bilateral sensorineural hearing loss manifested during active duty service or to a compensable degree within one year of military discharge. (b.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s bilateral sensorineural hearing loss is due to, related to, or otherwise etiologically associated with an in-service injury, event, or disease. (c.) Whether evidence clearly and unmistakably establishes that a hearing loss disability pre-existed the Veteran’s active duty service and, if so, whether evidence clearly and unmistakably establishes that a hearing loss disability was not permanently aggravated beyond its natural progression due to an in-service injury, event, or disease. **Clear and unmistakable evidence is that which is manifest and undebatable. In offering the above opinion(s), the examiner must consider and discuss as necessary all pertinent lay and medical evidence of record including, but not limited to, the Veteran’s August 2020 written statement regarding exposure to excessive noise during military training. A complete and thorough rationale for any opinion(s) expressed, with reference to pertinent evidence of record, must be provided. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Worsham, 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.