Citation Nr: 21023476 Decision Date: 04/20/21 Archive Date: 04/20/21 DOCKET NO. 16-15 131 DATE: April 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1980 to June 1984. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a March 2013 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In September 2019, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been added to the Veteran’s claims file. The following November, the Board denied the Veteran’s claim. He appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Court). While the matter was pending before the Court, in November 2020, the Veteran’s attorney and a representative of VA’s Office of General Counsel filed a Joint Motion for Partial Remand. In the Joint Motion, the parties indicated that a remand was necessary because the Board relied on an inadequate medical opinion and did not provide adequate reasons or bases for its decision. Later that same month, the Court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the matter for readjudication. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Once VA undertakes to provide an examination or obtain an opinion, it must ensure that it is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). Here, the parties agree that the February 2013 medical opinion is inadequate because the examiner did not address significant medical history or the Veteran’s lay evidence. Specifically, the examiner failed to address significant threshold shifts during service, threshold shifts at separation, in-service ear diagnoses, complaints of hearing loss at separation, his reports of continuous hearing problems since service, and the Veteran’s 1984 service connection claim for an ear injury. Accordingly, remand is necessary to correct these deficiencies. Finally, as the case is being remanded for additional development, any outstanding VA treatment records should be associated with the claims file. See Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992) (per curiam). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Then, arrange for an appropriate healthcare provider to review the Veteran’s claims file and provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s hearing loss had its clinical onset during service or is due to an event or incident of the Veteran’s period of active service. The examiner must address (1) the significant threshold shifts during service, including on the July 1, 1981 audiogram, the November 30, 1982 audiogram, and the December 7, 1982 audiogram, (2) the threshold shift on the exit audiogram (5 decibels in the right and 10 in the left at 4000 Hertz), (3) the Veteran’s in-service ear diagnoses, including the July 1981 diagnosis of acute serous otitis media and acute otitis externa, the April 1983 assessment of external otitis, and the August 1983 assessment of ear pain, (4) the Veteran’s report of hearing loss at exit, and (5) the Veteran’s reports of continuous hearing problems since service. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries, and that his reports must be considered in the requested opinion. However, if there is a medical reason to doubt its veracity, the examiner should explain why the Veteran’s statements or recollection are inconsistent with the evidence in this case, medical principles relating to the onset and progress of the disease, the specific findings in the record, and/or your professional judgment. If the reviewing healthcare provider finds that physical examination or telehealth interview of the Veteran and/or diagnostic testing is necessary, such should be accomplished. A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. 3. After undertaking any additional development deemed appropriate and giving the Veteran full opportunity to supplement the record, adjudicate the Veteran’s pending claim in light of any additional evidence added to the record. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be afforded the applicable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Canedy, 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.