Citation Nr: 21022573 Decision Date: 04/16/21 Archive Date: 04/16/21 DOCKET NO. 16-30 929 DATE: April 16, 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 has active service from June 1963 to June 1967. The Veteran has additional periods of reserve and national guard service. This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a November 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran appeared before the undersigned Veterans’ Law Judge at a February 2018 hearing. In December 2018, the Board, finding new and material evidence had been received, reopened the Veteran’s previously denied and final claims for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The matters were remanded to the RO for additional development, specifically a new examination (12/11/2018 BVA Decision). The Veteran was scheduled for an audiologic examination in September 2019 (9/14/2019 Exam Request). The record indicates the Veteran did not report for the examination and did not provide an excuse for the “no show” (10/02/2019 C&P Exam; 10/02/2019 Exam Request; 10/02/2019 Exam Request). A supplemental statement of the case and separate notice that the matter was being returned to the Board were provided to the Veteran and his representative (5/27/2020 SSOC; 9/15/2020 BVA Letter). Review of the record does not verify that the Veteran was notified of the audiology appointment prior to the scheduled September 2019 appointment. Because it is not clear that the Veteran had any notice of the September 2019 VA examination appointment, the Board cannot find there has been substantial compliance with the prior remand directives. Therefore, in accordance with Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998), additional remand is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: In accordance with the December 2018 Board remand directives, schedule the Veteran for an audiologic examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus. Annotate the file as to how the Veteran was notified of the examination. The examiner should review the Veteran’s record to include the December 2018 remand in association with the examination. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not that any hearing loss and/or tinnitus is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include excessive noise exposure that has been conceded. With regard to complaints of tinnitus, the examiner must also opine whether it is at least as likely as not (1) proximately due to hearing loss, or (2) aggravated beyond its natural progression by hearing loss. The examiner should note that the Veteran reported hearing loss in June 1969; that the May 1973 and June 1977 audiological examinations reflect a gradual loss of hearing (including a hearing loss disability in the right ear in June 1977); and that in May 1986, the Veteran reported a gradual loss of hearing over many years. The examiner is reminded to consider the Veteran’s lay reports, including but not limited to his reports of “wind noise” in his ears. A reason must be provided if the Veteran’s lay reports are rejected. Lay statements cannot be rejected solely due to a lack of medical documentation. If there is a medical reason to accept or not accept the Veteran’s contentions, the examiner should provide them. If the absence of medical documentation is relevant, the relevance must be explained because the absence of evidence is not positive evidence of the existence or non-existence of an event. If the examiner is able to gather additional understanding or information regarding the circumstances surrounding any inservice injury or event, the examiner should include that information in his remarks. The examiner must provide all findings, along with a complete rationale for his or her opinion(s) in the examination report. If any of the above requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and explain why this is so, (e.g., whether an opinion is beyond what any medical practitioner might be able to provide, based on the evidence of record and current medical knowledge). Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P. A. Myers 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.