Citation Nr: 21012002 Decision Date: 03/03/21 Archive Date: 03/03/21 DOCKET NO. 16-28 335 DATE: March 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from May 1959 to May 1963. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from the March 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. This matter was previously before the Board in August 2019. At that time, the Veteran’s claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss was denied. The Veteran appealed this decision to the Court of Veterans Appeals (Court). In June 2020, the Court issued a joint motion for partial remand. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss is related to his military service. In August 2019, the Board denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran appealed this decision to the Court of Veterans Appeals (Court). In June 2020, the Court issued a joint motion for partial remand. Specifically, the Court found that the Board did not provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for finding that the November 2018 VA audio opinion was probative. This matter was most recently before the Board in December 2020 and was remanded for further development. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss is related to his military service. Specifically, the Veteran has stated throughout the record that he worked in an area right beside a runway where planes were constantly taking off and landing. Additionally, the Veteran stated that the noise was so loud that the windows and building would shake and that he was not given hearing protection. In December 2020, the Board found that a remand was warranted for the Veteran to undergo another VA audio examination as the Veteran’s previous examination in November 2018 failed to take into account the Veteran’s lay statements regarding repeated noise exposure during his military service. Subsequently, in December 2020, the Veteran underwent a VA hearing loss examination. The examiner conceded that the Veteran had military noise exposure. However, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s current hearing loss is less likely as not caused by or a result of military noise exposure. The examiner based this opinion on the fact that an audiogram is the objective standard for noise injury and the Veteran’s hearing was normal at separation, therefore there is no evidence that the Veteran’s military noise exposure caused a permanent noise injury affecting hearing sensitivity. The Board notes that a VA examiner must offer a full rationale for all opinions given and should not rely on the absence of evidence of in-service treatment or injury in the Veteran’s service treatment records as a basis for any given opinion. Therefore, the Board finds that the December 2020 VA opinion is inadequate. The examiner solely relies on the Veteran’s separation examination and again does not take into account the Veteran’s lay statements and explain why his current hearing loss is not related to his conceded noise exposure. Therefore, another remand is warranted to obtain an addendum opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including not wearing hearing protection in service and working next to a runway and experiencing noise exposure loud enough to shake the building, to include airplanes constantly landing and taking off. All opinions provided must be thoroughly explained and an adequate rationale for any conclusions reached must be provided. The examiner should not solely rely on the absence of evidence of in-service treatment or injury in the Veteran’s service treatment records as a basis for any given opinion. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the medical professional should state and explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. (Continued on the next page)   2. Following completion of the above, and a review of any additional evidence received, the RO should also undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion which considers any newly received evidence. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Mountford, 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.