Citation Nr: 21012025 Decision Date: 03/03/21 Archive Date: 03/03/21 DOCKET NO. 14-33 504 DATE: March 3, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from June 1967 to June 1970 and August 1972 to August 1975. This matter was before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In April 2018, the Board remanded the Veteran’s claim for further development. In September 2019, the Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran appealed the Board’s denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Hereinafter “Court”). In a September 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand, thereby vacating the Board’s denial of service connection and remanded the issue back to the Board for additional development. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Despite the additional and regrettable delay, a remand is required to obtain an adequate VA examination and medical opinion. As pointed out by the Court, the July 2012 VA examiner did not have an opportunity to assess the Veteran’s competent and credible lay statements about his continuity of symptoms associated with his bilateral hearing loss. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993) (a medical opinion based on an inaccurate factual premise has no probative value). Therefore, the Board cannot fully adjudicate the Veteran’s claim without an adequate VA medical opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Please note that, by law, ALL remanded claims must be processed expeditiously. 2. The AOJ should arrange for a VA medical opinion, with examination or telehealth interview of the Veteran only if deemed necessary by a medical professional, to determine the nature and likely cause of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability. The examiner should review the claim file (including this remand) and note such review was conducted. Based on review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion with detailed rationale that responds to the following: (a.) The Board notes for the examiner that it has already been determined that the Veteran has a current bilateral hearing loss disability (as defined for VA purposes) and that he was exposed to hazardous noise in service. For the purposes of the opinion requested, the examiner should assume these two elements of service connection to be met. (b.) IS IT AT LEAST AS LIKELY AS NOT (50 PERCENT OR GREATER PROBABILITY) that the Veteran’s currently diagnosed bilateral hearing loss is related to or caused by his conceded in-service exposure to hazardous noise? The examiner’s attention is drawn to the following records (the following is a brief factual background and not intended to be a substitute for your review of the claims folder): (c.) The Veteran’s May 2017 Board hearing testimony in which he stated he noticed observable symptoms associated with hearing loss or trouble after exposure to loud noise in service and that those symptoms have continued since then and progressively gotten worse. (Please address in opinion) (d.) A February 2013 private medical examination. (e.) A June 2019 private audiological assessment. The examiner is reminded that the Veteran is competent to provide information about observable symptoms and events. The examiner should assume, for the purposes of the opinions, that the Veteran’s reports are both accurate and credible. A detailed explanation (rationale) is required for all opinions provided. (By law, the Board is not permitted to rely on any conclusion that is not supported by a thorough explanation. Providing an opinion or conclusion without a thorough explanation will delay processing of the claim and may also result in a clarification being requested.) VICTORIA MOSHIASHWILI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Williams, 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.