Citation Nr: 22014435
Decision Date: 03/12/22	Archive Date: 03/12/22

DOCKET NO. 17-33 183
DATE: March 12, 2022

REMANDED

Service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1995 to December 1997.

This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeal (Board) on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  This matter is being adjudicated under the legacy appellate framework.

The Veteran testified at a personal hearing before the Board in August 2019, and a transcript of the hearing is of record.

This matter was previously before the Board, and, in November 2019, the Board remanded this matter for further development.  In February 2021, the Board disposed of this matter, and, in November 2021, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) vacated the Board's disposition and remanded this matter back to the Board for further consideration.

Service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded.

In November 2021 a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) was filed with the Court.  In the JMR, the parties took issue with the adequacy of a July 2020 VA examination.  In particular, the examiner did not consider the Veteran's lay statements of inservice exposure to loud noises.  As the July 2020 is inadequate, this matter must be remanded for a new VA examination in order to ensure substantial compliance with the Board's and Court's remand instructions.  Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

Arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to address the following.  Does a medical nexus exist between an in-service incurrence and a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss?  Why or why not?

In answering these inquiries, the examiner must consider and discuss, the Veteran's reports of inservice noise exposure to artillery fire and diesel engines.  A complete rationale for any opinion rendered should be provided.

 

 

DAVID L. WIGHT

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.