Citation Nr: 21015489 Decision Date: 03/17/21 Archive Date: 03/17/21 DOCKET NO. 17-62 314 DATE: March 17, 2021 REMANDED The claim for service connection for glaucoma or blindness in the left eye is remanded. The claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The claim for service connection for a back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1973 to December 1975. He testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at an August 2019 Board hearing. A complete transcript is of record. This appeal was previously before the Board in November 2019. The Board denied the Veteran’s service connection claims for glaucoma or blindness, for bilateral hearing loss, and for a back disability. The Veteran disagreed with that decision and appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran’s Claims (Court). The Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), vacating the November 2019 Board decision that denied the service connection claims and returning it to the Board for compliance with the JMR. The JMR noted that the Veteran reported receiving treatment at the New Orleans VA Medical Center (VAMC) from 1979 to the present. However, the Court also noted that the earliest record from the New Orleans VAMC associated with the Veteran’s claims file was dated in November 14, 2003. The Court found that on remand, the Board should ensure that the regional office (RO) made reasonable efforts to locate and obtain the identified New Orleans VAMC medical records, dating back to 1979. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(2), (3). The Court also made note that the Veteran received treatment from VA medical services while in Long Beach, California; Jackson, Mississippi; and Houston, Texas. The JMR also noted that the Veteran had been afforded a VA examination in December 2015, where the examiner provided a negative nexus opinion. The examiner based her opinion on a comparison between two in-service audiologic examinations, dated January 9, 1973 and April 8, 1975. However, the Court found that the record contained no April 8, 1975 audiologic examination. The Court noted the following audiologic examinations of record, January 1973 induction audiogram, October 1975 separation audiogram; November 1975 audiograms; October 1975 audiogram; and December 1975 audiology evaluation record. The Court found that the Board relied on the December 2015 medical opinion, which relied on a non-existent audiologic examination and that remand is required for the Board to address the adequacy of the December 2015 examination, in light of the examiner’s reliance on a missing record. See Webster v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1991). As such, the Board finds that remand is necessary to assist the Veteran in obtaining his outstanding VA medical records and to provide new VA examinations which take into account the new evidence and to specifically address the audiology examiner’s reliance on a missing record. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain VA treatment records from the New Orleans VAMC from 1979 to the present, as well as VA treatment records from the Long Beach, California VAMC, the Jackson, Mississippi VAMC, and the Houston, Texas VAMC. All efforts to obtain these records must be documented in the claims file. If the records cannot be obtained, a formal finding of unavailability shall be made, and the Veteran notified of such. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of bilateral hearing loss. The examiner should review the Joint Motion for Remand (“Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) Decision received on October 19, 2020) to understand why the previous medical opinion regarding bilateral hearing loss was found to be inadequate. The Board notes that the pertinent section is found on page 3 of the CAVC decision. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Fu, 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.