Citation Nr: 21008652 Decision Date: 02/17/21 Archive Date: 02/17/21 DOCKET NO. 09-41 139 DATE: February 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1970 to January 1972. The Veteran's claim was previously before the Board in September 2016 and May 2018, at which time it was remanded for additional development. Upon completion of the directed development, the claim was returned to the Board and subsequently denied in a January 2020 decision. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). The Court then issued an order approving a Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion) to address deficiency in the January 2020 Board decision in September 2020. The case has, thus, been returned to the Board. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran was afforded VA examinations in May 1972, August 1974 and July 2008, along with addendum medical opinions in February 2017 and July 2019. Pursuant to the terms of the Joint Motion, the July 2008 and July 2019 VA examiners did not provide sufficient rationale for the conclusions. The July 2008 examiner noted that the current air conduction pattern was not consistent with the air conduction pattern on the 1972 and 1974 hearing tests and concluded the current hearing loss was not related to service, as the 1972 and 1974 hearing was normal. The examiner, however, did not explain the significance of these facts in making his conclusion. The July 2019 opinion stated that there was an absence of any evidence of a threshold shift in the Veteran’s hearing in service, and thus, the Veteran’s hearing loss is less likely than not aggravated beyond its natural progression by the Veteran’s service-connected residuals of a head injury. However, the examiner did not explain the rationale for this aggravation opinion. A remand is necessary for an addendum opinion with appropriate rationale. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify any additional relevant records he wishes considered regarding this appeal, which records should be sought. 2. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, obtain a VA medical opinion to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. The claims file should be made available and reviewed by the opinion provider. If deemed necessary, afford the Veteran a VA examination. The opinion should address whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's diagnosed bilateral hearing loss: (a.) had its onset during active duty or is otherwise related to the Veteran's service, to include the Veteran's reported in-service acoustic trauma/blast injury; (b.) is proximately due to his service-connected residuals of head injury; (c.) has been aggravated (worsened beyond the natural progression) by his service-connected residuals of head injury. The opinion should include the reasons for the conclusions expressed, with reference to specific information in the file, and why those facts are significant. 3. After any further development as may be indicated has been accomplished, readjudicate the issue on appeal. MICHAEL KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Jaigirdar, 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.