Citation Nr: 21042626 Decision Date: 07/13/21 Archive Date: 07/13/21 DOCKET NO. 16-13 989 DATE: July 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1985 to June 1989. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a December 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In July 2020, the Board remanded this case in order for the RO to provide the Veteran with the May 2019 examiner's curriculum vitae. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss disability should be service connected. The Board notes that the Veteran is service connected for tinnitus in large part due to his in-service hazardous noise exposure by working on the flight deck of the USS Saratoga (CV-60). The Veteran was afforded a VA hearing loss examination in May 2019. The examiner found the Veteran has hearing loss for VA purposes. However, the examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's hearing loss disability was incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner stated that a review of the Veteran's service treatment records showed normal hearing and no threshold shifts. In the same examination, the examiner rendered a positive nexus opinion for service connection for tinnitus. The examiner detailed hazardous noise exposure due to the Veteran's active duty service. In July 2020, the Veteran's representative submitted an appellate brief arguing that hearing loss can be immediate, or it can take a long time to be noticeable. The Veteran's representative also cited medical journal articles regarding the relationships between hazardous noise, aging, and hearing loss. In August 2020 the RO requested an examination to address the evidence in the appellate brief mentioned above. In April 2021, the RO produced a document stating the examination was canceled. No new VA examination was afforded to the Veteran. In June 2021, the Veteran submitted a lay statement and the representative submitted another appellate brief. The Veteran stated that after he applied to his first civilian job, around 1990, he underwent a hearing test that showed high frequency hearing loss. The Veteran attempted to obtain these records but was unsuccessful. In the Veteran's second appellate brief, the representative again stressed the Veteran's hazardous noise exposure from working on a carrier flight deck on active duty. The Veteran's representative cited medical articles regarding delayed onset hearing loss. Additionally, the representative correctly cited Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155 (1993) when it argued that the lack of hearing loss and threshold shift alone does not preclude service connection for hearing loss. The Board finds that a remand is required for a new VA hearing examination to address the entire record. Lastly, in September 2018, the Board remanded this case for the RO to obtain the Veteran's complete treatment records associated with his service in the Naval Reserve and/or Fleet Reserve. The Veteran's record shows duplicative active service treatment records were added to the file. However, no records from the Veteran's reserve duty were obtained. On remand, the RO should attempt to obtain the Naval Reserve records. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Make another attempt to ask the Veteran to identify all VA and non-VA medical care providers that have treated him for hearing loss since June 1989. Then, make arrangements to obtain these records 2. Make arrangements to obtain the Veteran's complete treatment records after the Veteran's active duty service ending in June 1989 associated with his service in the Naval Reserve and/or Fleet Reserve, to include all audiograms. If no records are obtained and only active duty records are found, the RO should document their attempts. 3. After the above development is completed, afford the Veteran a VA hearing examination to address the nature and etiology of the claimed bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran's entire record, including this remand, should be made available to the examiner. The examiner should review the pertinent evidence, including but not limited to, the Veteran's lay statement from June 2021, the appellate briefs from July 2020 and June 2021, and all medical articles cited by the Veteran's representative. The examiner must address the following: a.) Determine whether it is at least as likely as not (at least an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence) that the Veteran's hearing loss is etiologically related to his active service. If different conclusions are reached regarding the etiology of the hearing loss in either ear, a complete rationale explaining the different conclusions should be provided. The examiner is reminded that a lack of hearing loss and threshold shifts in service does not preclude service connection. Hensley, 5 Vet. App. at 157. Additionally, the examiner must address the Veteran's hazardous noise exposure while on active duty, along with the medical articles the Veteran's representative submitted regards delayed onset hearing loss. All opinions must be supported by a rationale, with reference to medical treatises or authority as appropriate A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Hetman 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.