Citation Nr: 21007077 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 14-35 367 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 July 1963 to July 1966, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a September 2011 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded the matter in July 2018 for further development. The Veteran relates his bilateral hearing loss to hazardous noise exposure incurred during active service as an electronics device repairman. See January 2021 Informal Hearing Presentation; December 2020 VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim; October 2014 VA Form 9; August 2012 Notice of Disagreement. Unfortunately, another remand is necessary, as the record does not contain reliable audiometric test results that are adequate for rating purposes. The November 2020 VA audiologist stated that reliable pure tone thresholds could not be obtained and the results were unreliable, and that the use of speech discrimination scores were not appropriate for the Veteran. An August 2011 VA audiology examination report also indicates that the pure tone threshold test results were invalid for rating purposes. A January 2011 private audiology examination establishes pure tone thresholds; however, the examination did not use the Maryland CNC word list for speech discrimination testing as required by 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a) and therefore cannot be employed to rate his claim. Although the Veteran’s VA treatment records indicate the Veteran wears VA-furnished hearing aids and has a diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, those records do not provide audiometric test results showing pure tone thresholds and speech discrimination scores that can be used to establish a hearing disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Given the above evidence, the Board agrees with the Veteran’s representative that remand is necessary to schedule the Veteran for one more VA audiology examination in order to secure the evidence necessary to adjudicate his claim. The Veteran is reminded that while VA has a duty to assist in the development of his appeal, he has a duty to cooperate with VA in these efforts. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Any outstanding VA and private treatment records should also be secured. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records. 2. With any necessary assistance from the Veteran, secure any relevant outstanding private treatment records. 3. Then schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination. Any and all efforts should be made to obtain reliable results that are adequate for rating purposes, and the Veteran should be encouraged to fully cooperate with this process. If the examination reveals hearing loss for VA purposes pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, a medical opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran’s hearing loss should be secured. Based on the examination and review of the record, the examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s hearing loss had its onset in or is otherwise related to his active military service. In addressing this question, please: (a) note the Veteran’s in-service military occupational specialty was an electronics device repairman, which involved a high incidence of hazardous noise exposure; therefore, in-service exposure to hazardous acoustic trauma should be conceded; (b) consider and address the Veteran’s report of ear, nose, and throat trouble at service separation; (c) assume that no audiogram was performed at separation from service, in light of the Veteran’s assertion and the fact that a large zero was written over all tested frequencies on the Veteran’s separation audiogram as opposed to the Veteran’s enlistment examination, which noted decibel loss of 10 or 15 decibels at all tested frequencies; (d) accept the Veteran’s report of continuous hearing loss since service as true, despite any documentation, and determine whether a nexus between service and hearing loss is “medically plausible” given the same; (e) consider the possibility of delayed-onset hearing loss. The examiner is advised that basing a negative opinion on the lack of demonstrated hearing loss in service will render it inadequate. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. If unable to opine without resorting to speculation, please provide a basis for reaching this conclusion. S. BUSH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. deBruyn, 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.