Citation Nr: 21013956 Decision Date: 03/11/21 Archive Date: 03/11/21 DOCKET NO. 16-15 769A DATE: March 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from March 1966 to January 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2020, the Board remanded the matter for further development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. In January 2020, the Board remanded the matter to for further development, to include obtaining an addendum VA opinion as to the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. The Board directed the examiner to opine whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss had its onset during service or is otherwise etiologically related to his service, to include as a result of documented in-service ear problems. The Board also directed the examiner to provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is proximately due to or aggravated beyond its natural progress by his service-connected tinnitus. The Veteran’s service treatment records contain multiple reports of in-service ear problems. A December 1969 treatment note indicates that the Veteran was seen on sick call for a hearing problem in his left ear. See STR – Medical, p. 12. The note also indicates that the Veteran had cerumen in his left ear and that the treatment plan was irrigation. Id. On January 5, 1970, another treatment note indicated that the Veteran had experienced pain in the left ear for three weeks and the provider noted a possible mild fungal infection of the inner part of the left ear canal. Id. The Veteran reported hearing buzzing in his ears. Id. On January 14, 1970, the Veteran reported a left earache and tinnitus for one month that occurred after an upper respiratory infection in December. Id. at 13. The Veteran also reported that he felt his hearing was diminished somewhat. Id. On his January 21, 1970 Report of Medical History upon separation, the Veteran noted hearing problems in his left ear. Id. at 9. In January 2020, a VA examiner issued an addendum opinion as to the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not incurred in or caused by his active duty service. The examiner reasoned that there is still not conclusive evidence in research to support a delayed onset of hearing loss in the absence of auditory damage from conceded noise and that research still supports that the effects of hazardous noise are evident within a short time of exposure. The examiner did not cite to any specific research that supports this finding and did not address any of the in-service ear problems listed above. Due to the examiner’s failure to address the Veteran’s multiple in-service reports of ear problems, the Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the directives of the January 2020 remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (finding that a Board remand confers on a claimant the right to compliance with the remand orders). Thus, the Board finds that a new examination is required. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007) (once VA undertakes to provide a medical examination or opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination with a different examiner to determine the nature and etiology of his bilateral hearing loss. The entire claims file, to include a copy of this REMAND, should be made available to the examiner for review. Based on a review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should respond to the following: (a.) Is it least likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss had its onset in or is otherwise related to service? (b.) Is it at least likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is proximately due to or aggravated beyond its natural progression by his service-connected tinnitus? *In rendering the above opinions, the examiner must address all relevant lay and medical evidence of record, including but not limited to all in-service reports of ear problems. See STR – Medical, pp. 9, 12, 13. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries and that his reports must be taken into account in formulating the requested opinions. (Continued on the next page)   The examiner must provide rationale for all proffered opinions. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Watkins, 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.