Citation Nr: 21039740 Decision Date: 07/01/21 Archive Date: 07/01/21 DOCKET NO. 16-28 481 DATE: July 1, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Marine Corps with active duty service from August 1968 to June 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2014 rating decision. The Board initially denied the claims for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus in a March 2020 decision. The Veteran appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). The Court vacated the Board's denial in a February 2021 Joint Motion for Remand. Specifically, the Court held that the Board did not provide adequate reasons and basis for its denial of the Veteran's claims. Specifically, the Court found the Board failed to consider scholarly articles submitted by the Veteran in support of his claim. Further, the Board failed to obtain an opinion regarding the Veteran's claim of delayed onset hearing loss. Regarding the Veteran's tinnitus claim, the Court found the Board failed to obtain an opinion that addresses the Veteran's report of the onset of tinnitus during service and other lay evidence establishing continuity of symptomatology. The claims are now again before the Board to address the issues stated by the Court. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate examination to determine the nature and likely etiology of his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The claims file and all pertinent records must be made available to the examiner for review. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus had onset in service or within one year following separation from service, or was causally related to service. A discussion of the facts and medical principles involved (to include acoustic trauma and military noise exposure), including any service treatment records or military personnel file records which may have been made a part of the evidence of record and the Veteran's lay assertions, including the onset of his claimed tinnitus in service, should be considered in giving this opinion. It is not a sufficient rationale for a negative nexus opinion merely to state or assume that the Veteran's hearing was within normal limits on audiometric testing during service. In such a case, service connection is not precluded if there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a relationship between the appellant's service and a current disability which satisfies 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). The examiner must explain the rationale for all opinions, citing to supporting clinical data and/or medical texts or treatises as deemed appropriate. This includes opining on the medical journal articles submitted by the Veteran regarding delayed onset hearing loss. If the examiner determines that a requested opinion cannot be given without resort to speculation, the examiner must explain the reason for that conclusion. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Jorge Barroso, 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.