Citation Nr: 21012114 Decision Date: 03/03/21 Archive Date: 03/03/21 DOCKET NO. 190724-42019 DATE: March 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1962 to November 1964. This case is being reviewed according to the appellate process set forth under the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (hereinafter the “Appeals Modernization Act” (AMA)). The Appeals Modernization Act became effective February 19, 2019. The Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 in response to a June 2019 Statement of the Case (issued after AMA implementation). The Veteran requested the “Evidence” review option. The Board considered the matter per the Evidence Docket, according to which there was the opportunity to forward additional evidence within 90 days of filing a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) (Form 10182). The Veteran appealed the December 2019 Board decision denying service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC or Court). In August 2020, the Court issued a Joint Motion for Partial Remand vacating, in part, and remanding the issues of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Court found that the Board erred in failing to identify, and remand for correction, of VA’s failure to fulfill its duty to assist. 1. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The Court specifically found that VA provided the Veteran with an inadequate medical opinion because it was based on the inaccurate factual premise that it was unlikely that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise. The Court furthered that even though the examiner premised his opinions regarding hearing loss and tinnitus on a low probability for exposure to hazardous noise, the Board found that the Veteran was actually exposed to hazardous noise in service. As a result, the issues must be remanded to afford the Veteran to a new VA medical opinion that is based on an accurate factual premise. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: (Continued on the next page)   1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to military noise exposure. The examiner must provide an opinion on the factual basis that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous military noise. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s tinnitus is at least as likely as not related to military noise exposure. The examiner must provide an opinion on the factual basis that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous military noise. Thomas H. O'Shay Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Imam, 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.