Citation Nr: 21025338 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 16-39 713 DATE: April 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from June 1957 to October 1960. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in April 2019. A transcript of the hearing is of record. This appeal was most recently before the Board in October 2019, at which time the Board denied the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and granted the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran appealed the Board's denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In an October 2020 Order, the CAVC granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) which vacated the Board’s October 2019 denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and remanded the claim for readjudication. In the JMPR, the parties agreed that the Board erred by failing to provide adequate reasons or bases for its denial when it failed to address the Veteran’s lay statements as part of its continuity of symptomatology analysis. The parties also agreed that the Board erred by not making a clear finding as to whether the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise during service, and by failing to make a determination as to whether the March 2017 addendum opinion was adequate to satisfy VA’s duty to assist. Remand was ordered for the Board to adequately address these errors and to readjudicate the Veteran's appeal. The Board finds the March 2017 VA examiner’s opinion to be inadequate, as the examiner failed to consider the Veteran’s lay statements of continuous bilateral hearing loss since service. Accordingly, the Board finds the issue on appeal must be remanded for further development. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the claim so that the Veteran is afforded every possible consideration. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss, which he contends is due to military noise exposure. The Veteran’s DD-214 shows his military occupational specialty (MOS) was radioman and that he served aboard the U.S.S. Capricornus (AKA-57). The Veteran reports that as a radio operator and maintainer he was exposed to significant noise from incoming radio traffic on the headset that he had to wear anywhere from 8-12 hours per day and that it was not possible to wear hearing protection underneath the headset. The Veteran also worked on and around teletype machines which the Veteran considers to also be a source of hazardous noise. Regarding civilian noise exposure, the Veteran reports that he wore hearing protection at all times during his work as a carpenter and that for the last 15 years of his employment he worked in management and was not exposed to any noise. See January 2017 Notice of Disagreement. The Veteran also reported that the ship he was assigned to, the U.S.S. Capricornus, was built in 1943 and as such had a very high level of noise from the ships machinery, ventilation system, and deck guns. See August 2016 VA-Form 9. In March 2017, the RO obtained an addendum opinion from the examiner who conducted the Veteran’s December 2017 VA audiology examination. In finding a negative nexus between the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and military noise exposure, the examiner referenced VA Form 21-2507 and stated that there was “no other evidence to base an opinion.” However, the examiner failed to consider the Veteran’s lay statements regarding in-service noise exposure. Once VA undertakes the effort to obtain a medical opinion when developing a service connection claim, even if not statutorily obligated to do so, it must provide one that is adequate for purposes of the determination being made. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). As such, remand is required to obtain a medical opinion to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Forward the Veteran's claims file, including a copy of this REMAND, to a VA audiologist who has not previously provided an opinion, to provide an additional medical opinion addressing the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. A full audiological examination should not be scheduled unless it is deemed necessary by the examiner or otherwise required by the evidence. The examiner must review the claims file in its entirety and that review should be noted in the examination report. Thereafter, the examiner should provide an opinion as to the following: (a) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss had its onset during active duty service or is otherwise related to any in-service disease, event, or injury, to include as due to any in-service noise exposure as reported by the Veteran? In providing the requested opinion, the examiner must consider and specifically address the Veteran’s lay statements: • that he was exposed to significant noise from incoming radio traffic on the headset that he had to wear 8-12 hours per day, and could not wear hearing protection underneath the headset. • the equipment used was WW-II era equipment and was much louder than equipment in use today. • that he worked on and around teletype machines onboard ship, which were also a source of hazardous noise. • and, that the ship he was assigned to had a very high level or noise from the ship’s machinery, ventilation system, and deck guns. In providing the requested opinion, the examiner must also consider and specifically address Navy and USMC Hearing Conservation Programs, November 19, 2007 presentation submitted by the Veteran. The examiner is reminded that the lack of documented hearing loss during service cannot serve as the sole basis for a negative finding. The Veteran's lay contentions must be considered and weighed in making the determination as to whether a nexus exists between the claimed diseases and military service. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for the conclusions reached. If an opinion cannot be reached without resorting to speculation, the examiner must fully explain why this is so. 2. Then, readjudicate the claim. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, issue the Veteran a supplemental statement of the case and allow the appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Gates, Charlene F. 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.