Citation Nr: 21009599 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 18-52 930 DATE: February 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service with the United States Marine Corps from June 1969 to June 1973. The Veteran is a Vietnam Era Veteran. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a December 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). When this case was last before the Board in June 2019, it was remanded for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. Although further delay is regrettable, the Board finds that a remand for additional development is required before the Veteran’s remaining claim can be decided. This issue was initially remanded in June 2019 in order to obtain an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s current hearing loss clearly and unmistakable existed prior to service, and if so, was the hearing loss aggravated, and if so was the aggravation clearly and unmistakably not due to the Veteran’s military service, to include noise exposure. The examiner was asked to provide dates of onset for the disability. The examiner was also asked to opine on if the Veteran’s hearing loss is causally or etiologically related to the Veteran’s military service. The examiner was instructed to thoroughly review the claims folder in connection with the examination and consider the Veteran’s statements concerning the onset of his claimed disabilities. Following the Board’s remand, the Veteran underwent an examination in January 2020. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s right ear hearing loss pre-existed service based on an audiological examination at enlistment in 1969 but was not aggravated by his military service based on the separation examination in 1973. The examiner opined that the left ear hearing loss did not exist prior to service; thus, he did not provide an opinion on aggravation due to military service. Nevertheless, the examiner concluded that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s hearing loss was related to his military service. However, the examiner failed to address an audiological examination conducted in 1972 that showed significant hearing loss in both ears. See STR-Medical received November 1973. Furthermore, while the examiner considered the Veteran’s lay statements of noise exposure prior to, during, and after military service, the examiner does not address the date of onset of the Veteran’s left ear hearing loss or his contentions that the 1973 examination was inadequate. Specifically, the Veteran disagrees with the examination comparisons that indicate his hearing loss became severe during service but normalized at separation, only to degrade again. See Notice of Disagreement received April 2015. Under these circumstances, the Board finds a remand is required in to provide an adequate opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Forward the Veteran’s entire claims file to a qualified VA examiner for an opinion regarding the etiology of his bilateral hearing loss. If the examiner determines an additional examination is necessary, such an examination should be scheduled. Following a review of the relevant records and lay statements, and an additional examination, if necessary, the examiner should state whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss is causally or etiologically related to the Veteran’s military service, including asserted noise exposure therein. With regard to the Veteran’s right ear, the examiner should indicate whether the Veteran’s pre-existing disability of hearing loss in the right ear was aggravated during service. If so, was this aggravation clearly and unmistakably due to the natural progression of the disease? In providing his or her opinion the examiner should address the following: a) the Veteran’s in-service audiology exam dated April 12 ,1972, and b) the Veteran’s conceded in-service noise exposure due to military service as aircraft mechanic. Finally, the examiner should address the Veteran’s lay statements of record, as well as his contentions in his April 2015 Notice of Disagreement noted in greater detail above. (Continued on the next page)   The examiner must provide a rationale for any proffered opinion. ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Townsend, 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.