Citation Nr: 21012556 Decision Date: 03/04/21 Archive Date: 03/04/21 DOCKET NO. 19-05 846 DATE: March 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1958 to October 1962. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Waco, Texas. This matter was remanded in August 2020 and has since been returned for further appellate review. This appeal has been advanced on the docket. 38 U.S.C. §7107 (2012); 38C.F.R. §20.900 (c) (2019). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Although the Board regrets additional delay, remand is required for an adequate VA opinion. The Board is obligated by law to ensure that the RO complies with its directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). RO compliance with remand directives is not optional or discretionary and the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure remand compliance. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. In the April 2020 remand the Board directed the examiner to specifically address the Veteran’s lay statements of record regarding bilateral hearing loss and the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS). In a May 2010 statement, the Veteran reported that during his 18-month tour of duty in Crete he copied Morse code with very high-volume radios trying to pick out the assigned signal. He described he experienced 8-12 loud signals playing in his ear with a very loud blast for 8 hours a day. The Board finds the Veteran's statements credible as they are consistent with his duties as a Morse Interception Operator and are supported by the record. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (2012); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995) (noting that the credibility of a witness may be impeached by a showing of interest, bias, inconsistent statements, consistency with other evidence), aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Also, in a May 2010 statement, the Veteran’s wife reported that when the Veteran came home from the Island of Crete she noticed that there was something wrong with the Veteran’s hearing. A December 2020 addendum opinion was obtained. The examiner opined that the bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not related to in-service noise exposure. Although the examiner acknowledged the lay statements of record the examiner did not adequately address the Veteran’s lay statements regarding in-serve noise exposure. Regarding the lay statements the examiner simply stated these “lay statements were again read but without any new information noted.” Similarly, although the examiner noted the Veteran’s MOS had a moderate probability of hazardous noise exposure, the Veteran has provided competent and credible statements describing his very specific duties. Further, his wife described the Veteran experienced hearing difficulties after returning from Crete. The examiner’s opinion was essentially conclusory and contained little or no rationale. Lastly, the examiner noted the entrance and exit audiograms, and indeed emphasized the probative nature of audiograms, but did not address that the entrance examination was a whisper test only. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the hearing loss. The entire claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. If an examination is deemed necessary, it shall be provided. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. The examiner must provide an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the bilateral hearing loss had onset in, or is otherwise related to, active military service, including in-service noise exposure. The examiner must address the following: 1) the Veteran’s MOS and noise exposure probability; 2) the VA audiological examinations of record November 2017 and December 2020; 3) the Veteran’s lay statements of record describing his in-service noise exposure, to include the May 2010, February 2011, September and February 2017 statements; 4) the May 2010 statement from the Veteran’s wife noting a change in the Veteran’s hearing when he returned from Crete; 5) any relevant STRs, to include the 1958 entrance whisper test and the September 1962 exist audiogram. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Braxton, 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.