Citation Nr: 21008121 Decision Date: 02/11/21 Archive Date: 02/11/21 DOCKET NO. 19-32 495 DATE: February 11, 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 Air Force from January 1955 to June 1960, and then again on active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from August 26, 1961 to September 1, 1961. Notwithstanding the above period of active duty, the Veteran also has other inactive service with the Wisconsin Air National Guard. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a March 2017 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). By way of background, the Veteran initially requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge, upon perfection of his appeal. See VA Form 9 (rec’d Oct. 28, 2019). On December 1, 2020, the Board received the Veteran’s cancellation of his hearing. See Correspondence (rec’d Dec. 1, 2020 ). The Board asserts jurisdiction of the matter accordingly. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket on account of advanced age. 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. By way of background, the Veteran was most recently afforded a VA audiological examination in October 2015. See VA Exam ( Oct. 29, 2015 ). Audiological testing revealed hearing loss that which constitutes a disability for VA purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. However, the examiner determined that it was not at least 50 percent likely that this hearing loss could be attributed to service because “Veteran’s service medical records indicate he had hearing within normal limits at his 6/17/1954 physical. His later tests on 5/8/1958, 3/17/1960, 6/28/1960, and 5/5/1961 all show hearing within normal limits from 250-8000 Hz, with no significant shift in hearing.” See VA Exam (Oct. 29, 2015) at Question No. 3. However, the examiner did not consider the Veteran's reports that his hearing loss symptoms began during service. See, e.g., Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007) (an examination was inadequate where the examiner did not comment on a Veteran's reports of in-service injury and instead relied on the absence of evidence in a Veteran's service treatment records to provide a negative opinion). Furthermore, audiograms dated April 8, 1957 and April 6, 1959 were omitted from discussion; therefore, an addendum opinion is required to address the relevance (or lack thereof) of these audiometric results. On remand, an addendum opinion that address the Veteran’s contentions should be obtained. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be given the opportunity to identify any outstanding private or VA treatment records relevant to the claim on appeal. After obtaining any necessary authorization from the Veteran, all outstanding records should be obtained, to include updated VA treatment records. For private treatment records, make at least two (2) attempts to obtain records from any identified sources. If any such records are unavailable, inform the Veteran and his representative and afford him an opportunity to submit any copies in her possession. For federal records, all reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). Following the receipt of all outstanding records, return the claims file, to include a copy of this remand, to an audiologist or other appropriate clinician for an addendum opinion. The claims file should be made available to the examiner in conjunction with the examination. Any medically indicated tests should be accomplished, and all pertinent symptomatology and findings must be reported in detail. The need for another examination is left to the discretion of the medical professional offering the addendum opinion. The examiner is asked to respond to the following question: For the diagnosed bilateral hearing loss, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that such disorder had its onset during the Veteran's period of active duty service or was caused by any incident or event that occurred during his period of service? The examiner should specifically address the Veteran’s contentions that he was exposed to noise in service from firearms as well as airplanes without hearing protection. An addendum opinion that specifically addresses the significance, if any, of a lack of threshold shifts during service is required. In providing the requested opinions, the examiner is advised that the term “at least as likely as not” does not mean within the realm of possibility. Rather, it means that the weight of medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that is medically sound to find in favor of causation as to find against causation. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed, to include citation to specific medical documents and clinical findings must be indicated in the report. KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael B. Engle, 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.