Citation Nr: 21010604 Decision Date: 02/25/21 Archive Date: 02/25/21 DOCKET NO. 17-10 450 DATE: February 25, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, to include as secondary to service connected tinnitus, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from January 1969 to February 1972. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A January 2019 Board decision denied the Veteran entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran timely appealed the Board’s denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). Pursuant to a May 2020 Memorandum Decision and Order, the portion of the January 2019 Board decision which denied the Veteran entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss was vacated and the appeal was remanded to the Board for action consistent with the Order. The Court dismissed the appeal to the other issues decided in the January 2019 Board decision. 1. Bilateral Hearing Loss The Veteran asserts that his claimed bilateral hearing loss is related to his active service. Specifically, the Veteran states that, while on active duty, he was exposed to noise as part of his military occupational specialty (MOS) of wheeled vehicle mechanic. He has also asserted that he was exposed to combat noise, rockets and gunfire noise, and explosives noise. The Veteran also asserts that his diagnosed bilateral hearing loss is related to his service-connected tinnitus. The Veteran underwent a VA audiological examination in August 2015. See Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ), August 5, 2015. The examiner stated that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was not related to his active service, as there was no hearing loss noted on the Veteran’s separation examination. The August 2015 examiner did not discuss, or comment on, the relationship (if any) between the Veteran’s service-connected tinnitus and his claimed bilateral hearing loss. Once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination, even if not statutorily obligated to do so, VA must provide an adequate one or notify the claimant when one will not or cannot be provided. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). Therefore, a new VA examination is warranted to specifically address the nature and etiology of his bilateral hearing loss, to include its relationship to the service-connected tinnitus. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d) (an examination or medical opinion is warranted when the record contains competent evidence that the claimant has a current disability or signs and symptoms of a current disability; the record indicates that the disability or signs and symptoms of disability may be associated with active service; and the record does not contain sufficient information to make a decision on the claim). The matters are 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 afford him an opportunity to submit any copies in his 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). 2. Return the claims file to the examiner who conducted the August 2015 VA audiological evaluation or other appropriate medical professional for an addendum opinion, if available. A complete and detailed rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. The need for further in-person examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. The examiner should once again review the claims file and provide an addendum opinion clarifying the following: (A) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing is related to or had its onset in his active service? The examiner should discuss the Veteran’s assertions that he experienced continuity of symptomatology related to his hearing loss since active service. (B) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing was caused or aggravated by his service connected tinnitus? A clear rationale for all opinions must be provided, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance. If the examiner opines that any of the above questions cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Lech, 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.