Citation Nr: 22015011 Decision Date: 03/16/22 Archive Date: 03/16/22 DOCKET NO. 18-12 681 DATE: March 16, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1970 to March 1974. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in December 2020, and a transcript of that hearing is of record. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran claims that his tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss was caused by or incurred during service. In the March 2018 substantive appeal, the Veteran indicated that the onset of his tinnitus was in service, even though he was unaware that it was abnormal until a civilian physician diagnosed him after separation. During the Board hearing, he testified that he was exposed to noise exposure in service, to include being surrounded by heavy gun fires. The Board previously remanded these issues finding the June 2015 VA examination obtained was inadequate in that the examiner did not address and reconcile the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) containing complaints of vertigo, the Veteran's lay statements noting in-service tinnitus "while in service" although he did not know what it was until after service when a civilian physician explained the abnormality, and whether his described in-service noise exposure was related to current hearing loss. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 164 (1993); see also Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249 (2020). An additional VA examination was obtained in October 2021, but the Board finds this examination is only partially responsive to the Board's remand directive. The examiner noted the Veteran's description of in-service noise exposure as well as his treatment for vertigo, but merely provided a conclusory opinion that neither were related to current hearing loss or tinnitus. No rationale was provided other than stating that there was no objective evidence of hearing loss or tinnitus at the time of separation. The Board cannot deny service connection for hearing loss merely because compensable hearing loss is not shown during service or upon separation. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159-60 (1993). An examiner, moreover, must provide a rationale for the opinions rendered in the report. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). Here, the Board finds, the October 2021 VA examiner merely provided a bare-bones conclusion that the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus was not likely related to service because he left service with normal hearing. The opinion did not provide any rationale other than noting his normal hearing upon separation, which is an insufficient basis for the Board to deny service connection. Cf. Hensley, 5 Vet. App. at 159-60. Once again, corrective action is necessary for an addendum opinion to consider the Veteran's description of in-service noise exposure, continuity of symptoms since service, his in-service treatment for vertigo, and his current hearing loss. In particular, the examiner is asked to provide an opinion relevant to the Veteran's current hearing loss and tinnitus as related to the in-service acoustic trauma. See Hensley, 5 Vet. App. at 164; see also Miller, 32 Vet. App. 249. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a medical addendum opinion on whether the Veteran's tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss was at least as likely as not caused by or incurred during service, to include his contended in-service noise exposure. In so opining, the examiner is directed to address and consider the Veteran's reports of noise exposure during service including being surrounded by heavy gun fire. The examiner is also directed to address and consider the Veteran's lay statements (included in VA form 9) regarding tinnitus onset during service that was not diagnosed until after separation. The examiner must address whether the Veteran's current hearing loss and tinnitus is related to the in-service noise exposure notwithstanding whether he ever had compensable hearing loss and/or tinnitus during service. The examiner should specifically address the Veteran's lay statements describing in-service noise exposure and continuity of symptomatology since service, and the in-service treatment for vertigo. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed must be provided with references to the evidence of record, as appropriate. If any opinion cannot be expressed without resort to speculation, ensure that the examiner so indicates and discusses why an opinion is not possible, to include whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. 2. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal. SHEREEN M. MARCUS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Lee, Catherine 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.