Citation Nr: 21032137 Decision Date: 05/26/21 Archive Date: 05/26/21 DOCKET NO. 14-33 354 DATE: May 26, 2021 REMANDED The issue of a rating greater than 10 percent for right knee osteoarthritis is remanded. The issue of service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The issue of service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1962 to August 1965 in the U.S. Army and from September 1972 to September 1973 in the U.S. Marine Corps. A rating greater than 10 percent for right knee osteoarthritis Service connection for bilateral hearing loss Service connection for tinnitus The Board has determined that additional development is necessary, and the matter is REMANDED for the following: 1. BACKGROUND FOR THE RO ADJUDICATOR: The Veteran's claims were denied in a November 2019 Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) decision. The Veteran appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In November 2020, the parties agreed to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) regarding the service connection claims for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus and the increased rating claim for right knee osteoarthritis. The parties agreed to the dismissal of the Veteran's lower back service connection claim. The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are due to his in-service noise exposure. The Veteran's accounts of in-service noise exposure are presumed credible because he served as a tank crewman. The Veteran also contends that his service-connected right knee osteoarthritis disability has worsened in severity. Remand is necessary to obtain new examinations for the bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus claims that addresses what significance, if any, can be seen in the delay between the in-service acoustic trauma and the development of his hearing loss and tinnitus. Remand is also necessary to obtain a new examination for the right knee osteoarthritis which addresses the Veteran's range of motion measurements during a flare up and conducts range of motion testing for active and passive motion, in weightbearing and non-weightbearing, and, if possible with the range of the opposite undamaged extremity. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the etiology of his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether the acoustic trauma experienced by the Veteran in-service could have caused delayed onset hearing loss and tinnitus. The examiner must review the record in conjunction with rendering the requested opinion; however, his/her attention is drawn to the following: * The Veteran served as a tank crewman on active duty and was exposed to acoustic trauma. *July 1965 and September 1973 pre-discharge examinations do not reveal any signs, symptoms, complaints, or diagnoses for hearing loss or tinnitus. * An April 2015 treatment note indicates that the Veteran worked as an auto/diesel mechanic, heavy equipment operator, and truck driver. He also noted occasional target shooting and hunting without the use of hearing protection. The Veteran reported a gradual decrease in hearing. * In February 2016, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. The examiner stated that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus disorder were related to service. The examiner explained that the claimant had normal hearing at discharge, and the Veteran's present symptoms are closely related to eustachian tube dysfunction. * In a July 2018 private treatment record, the physician suggested that the Veteran's hearing loss was the result of in-service noise exposure. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the severity of his right knee osteoarthritis. The examiner must test the Veteran's active motion, passive motion, with weight-bearing and without weight bearing. The examiner must also attempt to elicit information regarding the severity frequency, and duration of any flareups, and the degree of functional loss during flareups. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement based on direct observation, the examiner must provide an estimate, if possible, of the additional impairment due to flare-ups based on the other evidence of record and the Veteran's statements. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). The examiner must review the entire file, but his/her attention is drawn to the following: * In a March 2015 VA examination, the Veteran had right knee flexion to 70 degrees and extension to 10 degrees. * In a February 2016 VA examination, the Veteran had flexion ot 75 degrees and extension to 0 degrees. * In a December 2017 VA examination, the Veteran had flexion from 5 to 110 degrees and extension from 110 to 5 degrees. * In a June 2019 VA examination, the Veteran had flexion from 5 to 110 degrees, and extension from 110 to 5 degrees. * The March 2015, February 2016, December 2017, and June 2019 VA examinations noted no signs of instability, subluxation, effusion dislocations, malalignment, or locking. (Continued on next page) 4. Thereafter, and after undertaking any additional development deemed necessary, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative must be provided with a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and be afforded reasonable opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Wozniak, 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.