Citation Nr: 21026097 Decision Date: 04/29/21 Archive Date: 04/29/21 DOCKET NO. 17-25 392 DATE: April 29, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1967 to November 1970. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing in February 2021, before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). At the hearing, the record was held open 60 days. A transcript is of record. The Veteran contends that he has bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus due to his active military service. A VA examination in March 2015 revealed tinnitus as well as bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes (based on Maryland CNC speech discrimination scores). Remand is required to obtain an adequate opinion. Where VA provides the veteran with an examination in a service connection claim, the examination must be adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). When a Veteran has provided competent lay statements of an in-service injury, the examiner must consider and address them when developing their rationale. Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40 (2007) (holding that when the Veteran has provided lay testimony of an in-service injury, an examiner cannot ignore that lay evidence and base his or her opinion that there is no relationship to service on the absence of in-service corroborating medical records). In an August 2015 addendum opinion (from a March 2015 VA audiological examination) the examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was less likely than not related to service. In doing so, the examiner appeared to rely solely on the lack of objective documentation of hearing loss in the service treatment records. There is no indication that any lay statements concerning the Veteran’s assertion of continuity of symptomatology were either elicited or considered. Accordingly, remand is required. As for service connection for tinnitus, the March 2015 VA examiner essentially stated that the Veteran’s tinnitus was related to his hearing loss. However, a new examination with a medical opinion is still needed to address the Veteran’s lay statements. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the appropriate VA Medical Center and obtain and associate with the claims file all outstanding records of treatment on and after June 2017. 2. Contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify by name, address and dates of treatment or examination any relevant non-VA medical records. Subsequently, and after securing the proper authorizations where necessary, make arrangements to obtain all the records of treatment or examination from all the sources listed by the Veteran which are not already on file. 3. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, schedule the Veteran for an audiological examination with a qualified examiner to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus. The claims file, to include a copy of this Remand, should be reviewed by the examiner. The examiner should indicate whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus had their onset during service or are otherwise related to active military service, to include noise exposure from aircraft and generators. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions expressed. The rationale must consider and discuss the Veteran’s lay statements, to including his February 2021 Board hearing testimony. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board David Nelson 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.