Citation Nr: 21032657
Decision Date: 05/27/21	Archive Date: 05/27/21

DOCKET NO. 19-12 121
DATE: May 27, 2021

REMANDED

Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Army from February 1989 to February 1993, with additional service in the Army Reserves.  This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision.

In August 2019, the Board continued a denial for service connection for bilateral hearing loss.  The Veteran appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).  Pursuant to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by the parties, the Court remanded the matter back to the Board in November 2020.

VA obtained an opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's hearing loss in January 2017.  An in-person examination was not conducted, and no puretone audiometry or speech discrimination testing was performed.  The examiner nevertheless provided an opinion explaining why there was no nexus between any current hearing loss and service based on the relevant audiological records from service.

As stated in the November 2020 JMPR, this opinion was inadequate because it did not include tests of the Veteran's hearing, and that a more complete examination should be obtained.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his claimed bilateral hearing loss.  The examiner must review the claims file.  Puretone audiometry and speech discrimination testing (Maryland CNC) must be conducted.

The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following:

Is any current hearing loss at least as likely as not related to service, including noise exposure from service?  

Provide a rationale to support the opinion.

  

 

 

JOHN Z. JONES

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Shamil Patel, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.