Citation Nr: 21012596 Decision Date: 03/04/21 Archive Date: 03/04/21 DOCKET NO. 17-27 507 DATE: March 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disorder, to include symptoms of radiculopathy, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder, to include symptoms of radiculopathy, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Marine Corps from August 1974 to August 1978. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a December 2014 rating decision issued by a regional office (hereinafter agency of original jurisdiction or AOJ) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Veteran testified at a March 2020 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, a transcript of which has been attached to the record. The Board notes that the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus, initially included with those listed above, was granted by the AOJ in an April 2017 rating decision. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disorder, to include symptoms of radiculopathy, is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder, to include symptoms of radiculopathy, is remanded. The Veteran has testified to the onset of chronic symptoms of hearing loss, lumbar spine and cervical spine disabilities since service discharge. There is a significant time period between service discharge and the availability of any medical records. Notably, the Veteran appears to have received VA treatment shortly after service discharge. See VA Form 10-7131 dated April 1979 (VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Wisconsin seeking beneficiary information for VA hospital patient eligibility purposes); VA Form 10-7131 dated April 1980 (VAMC in Wisconsin notice of hospital admission); VA Form 10-7131 dated October 1985 (VAMC in Wisconsin seeking beneficiary information). This appeal must be remanded to obtain these identified VA treatment records. See Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992) (VA medical records are in constructive possession of the agency and must be obtained if the material could be determinative of the claim). With respect to the service connection claim for hearing loss, VA examiners have opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss is not related to service by reasoning that both the Veteran’s entry and separation audiograms were normal at all frequencies, indicating no hearing threshold shift during service. The examiners also noted there was no inservice complaint of hearing loss and cited to a 2006 Institute of Medicine Study (IOM) which stated there was insufficient scientific basis to conclude that permanent hearing loss directly attributable to noise exposure will develop long after said noise exposure, concluding that a prolonged delay in the onset of noise-induced hearing loss was “unlikely.” At the March 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran’s representative argued that the IOM study and scientific data has subsequently been “debunked several times over” citing an article published in the Journal of Neuroscience titled “Acceleration of Age-Related Hearing Loss by Early Noise Exposure.” The representative summarized this article as concluding that noise exposure in younger men may lead to accelerated hearing loss. At the hearing, the Veteran and his attorney were advised to submit any relevant medical treatise articles to support their claim. To date, no medical articles have been submitted. The Board cannot determine the relative probative value of the Journal of Neuroscience article titled “Acceleration of Age-Related Hearing Loss by Early Noise Exposure” as this article is not of record. On remand, the AOJ should inform the Veteran and his representative of their right to submit any medical articles in support of the appeal. With respect to the service connection claims for lumbar and cervical spine disabilities, the Board will defer consideration of additional development pending the receipt of pertinent evidence. See generally Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011) (discussing the “chicken-or-egg” dilemma faced by VA when requesting opinions and making credibility determinations with an undeveloped record, and recognizing that fact-finding is a responsibility that is ultimately committed to the Board and not a VA medical examiner). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate with the claims file any outstanding paper and/or electronic VA records, to include a specific search for VAMC records in Wisconsin since 1979. See VA Form 10-7131 dated April 1979 (VAMC in Wisconsin seeking beneficiary information for VA hospital patient eligibility purposes); VA Form 10-7131 dated April 1980 (VAMC in Wisconsin notice of hospital admission); VA Form 10-7131 dated October 1985 (VAMC in Wisconsin seeking beneficiary information). 2. Inform the Veteran and his representative of their right to submit any medical articles in support of the appeal, to include the Journal of Neuroscience article titled “Acceleration of Age-Related Hearing Loss by Early Noise Exposure” referenced at the hearing. 3. Thereafter, after considering the need for any additional development, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. C. Schumacher, 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.