Citation Nr: 21021773 Decision Date: 04/14/21 Archive Date: 04/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-52 483 DATE: April 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1975 to August 1978. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in December 2015 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In December 2019, the Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, and the Veteran subsequently appealed such decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In November 2020, the Court granted the Veteran’s and the Secretary of VA’s (the parties’) Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), which vacated and remanded the Board’s December 2019 decision for action consistent with the JMR. The claims now return to the Board for further appellate review. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. In the December 2019 decision, the Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus on the basis that the weight of the probative evidence was against a finding that such disorders began during active service or are otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. However, in the November 2020 JMR, the parties found that the Board erred in failing to address the Veteran’s representative’s arguments in an October 2019 Informal Hearing Presentation as to the adequacy of the November 2015 VA opinion upon which the Board relied in denying his claims, and failing to reconcile the Veteran’s conflicting reports regarding the onset of his tinnitus. Nonetheless, following the case’s return to the Board, the Veteran submitted additional evidence in January 2021 consisting of a hearing test and requested that the case be remanded to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for review of such additional evidence. Further, in his April 2021 Written Brief Presentation, the Veteran’s representative cited a medical article for the proposition that auditory damage can accelerate hearing loss in aging in some cases. Consequently, based on the Veteran’s request to have the newly submitted evidence considered by the AOJ in the first instance, the Board must remand the case for such review. Furthermore, prior to the readjudication of the Veteran’s case, the AOJ should review the record and conduct any additionally indicated development, to include obtaining any opinions deemed necessary for the adjudication of his claims, in light of the concerns raised in the JMR, the evidence submitted by the Veteran in January 2021, and the cited medical article in the April 2021 Written Brief Presentation. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should review the record and conduct any additionally indicated development, to include obtaining any opinions deemed necessary for the adjudication of the Veteran’s claims, in light of the concerns raised in the JMR, the evidence submitted by the Veteran in January 2021, and the cited medical article in the April 2021 Written Brief Presentation 2. Thereafter, the AOJ should readjudicate the claims on appeal based on the entirety of the evidence of record, to include the evidence submitted by the Veteran in January 2021. If the claims remain denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Clark, 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.