Citation Nr: 21012693 Decision Date: 03/05/21 Archive Date: 03/05/21 DOCKET NO. 15-21 047 DATE: March 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from August 1970 to March 1972. This matter was previously before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on an appeal from a July 2013 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2018, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). In a July 2019 decision, the Board denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection for hearing loss. Subsequently, the Veteran appealed the denial of his claim to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court/CAVC). In a July 2020 action, the Court vacated the Board’s July 2019 decision and remanded the matter to the Board for action consistent with the ruling. In November 2020, the Board remanded the matter for development consistent with the Court’s action. The claim is now once again before the Board. Unfortunately, the Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the November 2020 remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Specifically, per the July 2020 Court action, the Board requested an opinion that addresses the Veteran’s in-service otitis media and whether it could have caused the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. The Board also directed the examiner to address the June 2015 private audiologist’s opinion. However, the December 2020 opinion merely stated that the Veteran’s otitis media was diagnosed in service and cleared up several days later. The examiner did not address whether this could have caused the Veteran’s hearing loss, as was also suggested in the June 2011 hearing loss examination. In addition, the examiner did not address the positive opinion by the June 2015 private examiner that attributes the Veteran’s hearing loss to his combat duties in service, as well as the April 2011 VA audiology examination that states the Veteran’s diagnosed moderately severe hearing loss “most likely” has the same etiology as the Veteran’s service-connected tinnitus. The Board finds this significant, as the Veteran was service connected for tinnitus in an April 2015 rating decision based on the places, circumstances, and combat duties of his active service. As such, the Board finds that the examiner should address why the Veteran’s hearing loss would not be more likely due to the conceded in-service acoustic trauma, which is already the basis for service connection for tinnitus. Accordingly, the Board finds that a remand is necessary that addresses the deficiencies noted above. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Return the claims file to the VA examiner who prepared the December 2020 hearing examination, or to another qualified VA examiner if that individual is not available, for the purpose of eliciting an addendum opinion (and examination, if found necessary) regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions expressed. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the bilateral hearing loss is related to the Veteran’s active service. In setting forth this opinion, the examiner must take into consideration the Veteran’s documented treatment for otitis media in October 1971 and whether this is related to his current hearing loss. The examiner should also comment on June 2015 private opinion that attributes the Veteran’s hearing loss to his combat duties in service, as well as the VA finding that the Veteran’s tinnitus was related to in-service combat duties and acoustic trauma. The examiner should explain why this in-service acoustic trauma did not also cause the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss, especially in light of the April 2011 VA examination report, which noted that the Veteran’s tinnitus and hearing loss most likely have the same etiology. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Ariasaif, 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.