Citation Nr: 21008474 Decision Date: 02/17/21 Archive Date: 02/17/21 DOCKET NO. 16-44 138 DATE: February 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 1966 to January 1969. By way of procedural history, the Board notes that this claim was last denied by the Board in a November 2018 decision. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an Order dated May 2020, the Court issues a Memorandum Decision vacating the Board decision and remanded the case to the Board. The claim is now back before the Board for appellate review. 1. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. With regard to the claim for service connection for hearing loss, the Court in its decision found that the Board’s previous decision ignored the positive correlation established by the medical evidence of record between tinnitus and hearing loss. Here, the Court found that while the Board’s previous decision relied on the April 2016 VA examination and opinion as basis to deny the Veteran’s claim for hearing loss, the Board ignored the VA examiner’s opinion noting that the Veteran’s tinnitus was related/caused by the Veteran’s current hearing loss disability. The Court found that such opinion established positive etiological correlation between hearing loss and tinnitus, which required further exploring and explanation, especially in light of tinnitus being granted service connection. The Board finds that in light of the Court’s decision, additional evidence is required to speak to any potential positive etiological correlation between his now service-connected tinnitus and the Veteran’s claimed hearing loss. Specifically, the Board finds that April 2016 VA examination opinion to be inadequate, as while it notes that tinnitus was related to his post-service hearing loss, the opinion does not speak to whether the converse (e.g. hearing loss to tinnitus) is also established, or of the same etiological ilk. As neither the Board, nor the Veteran is competent to speak to such complex medical findings, VA must supplement the record by seeking an advisory opinion or ordering another medical examination. Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991); Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 213 (1992). Therefore, additional development is required for the Board to fulfill its duty to the Veteran. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Identify and obtain any outstanding VA and private treatment records not already of record in the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate clinician. The examiner must review the claims file and should note that review in the report. The examiner should provide an opinion regarding the nature and etiology of claimed headaches. The examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s hearing loss disability: (1) is related to the Veteran’s service or any event, disease, or injury during service, (2) is due to or the result of any service-connected disability, to specifically include tinnitus, (3) has been aggravated (permanently increased in severity beyond the natural progress of the disorder) by any service-connected disability, or (4) is a neurologic disability that manifested within one year following separation from service. Any additional tests that the examiner deems necessary should be performed. The rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided. The examiner must explicitly address the April 2016 VA opinion noting that the Veteran’s tinnitus was related to his hearing loss reconciled any findings with that opinion. DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Ziheng Zhu, 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.