Citation Nr: 21026609
Decision Date: 05/03/21	Archive Date: 05/03/21

DOCKET NO. 17-55 566
DATE: May 3, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1970 to November 1972.    

This matter is on appeal before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) from an October 2016 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In a November 2019 decision, the Board denied the instant claim.  The Veteran appealed.  In a December 2020 Order, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) upheld a joint motion of the parties and remanded the case back to the Board for action consistent with the joint motion.    

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.

In the December 2020 joint motion, the parties found that VA had not upheld the duty to assist because it had not obtained a November 2016 VA audiogram.  In this regard, a November 2016 VA audiology note shows that the Veteran received a VA audiometric assessment and that the results had been included in the Computerized Record System (CPRS).  The note indicates that pure tone thresholds indicated "moderately-severe to severe" hearing loss.  The joint motion indicated that the claims file did not contain the actual audiogram on which the finding of moderately-severe to severe hearing loss was based and that as this audiogram is pertinent to the Veteran's claim, it needed to be obtained.  The joint motion concluded that on remand, the Board must obtain this outstanding VA treatment record.  Consequently, a remand is required for the agency of original jurisdiction to obtain the actual November 2016 audiogram contained in the CPRS system.  

Additionally, since the prior November 2019 Board decision, the Veteran was afforded an additional VA audiological evaluation to assess the likely etiology of his tinnitus.  Since tinnitus can be closely related to hearing loss, the Board finds that on remand, an addendum opinion, which includes review of this newly added audiological evaluation, along with review of the previous September 2017 VA audiological evaluation, will be helpful in readjudicating the Veteran's claim.

On remand, the agency of original jurisdiction should obtain updated VA treatment records dated from August 2017 to the present.       

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1.  Obtain a copy of a November 2016 VA audiogram, which a November 16, 2016 VA audiology note indicates is contained in the VA Computerized Record System (CPRS).  If for some reason this audiogram is not obtainable, the agency of original jurisdiction should include in the record its attempts to locate it and its ultimate conclusion that the audiogram is unavailable.

2.  Obtain VA treatment records dated from August 2017 to the present.

3.  Obtain an addendum opinion from an audiologist concerning the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss.  This review should also include the post-service VA treatment records, including the record of the November 2016 VA audiological visit and November 2016 VA audiogram, if available; the September 2017 VA contract audiological evaluation; the November 2020 VA audiological evaluation with accompanying nexus opinion concerning the etiology of the Veteran's tinnitus; and any other information of record deemed pertinent. 

(a)  The audiologist should then provide an opinion whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss is related to his acoustic trauma during service.  

(b)  The audiologist should then provide an opinion whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss is aggravated by his service-connected tinnitus. 

The audiologist should explain the rationale for the opinions provided.  

 

 

S. HENEKS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Dan Brook, 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.