Citation Nr: 22016235 Decision Date: 03/21/22 Archive Date: 03/21/22 DOCKET NO. 16-25 045 DATE: March 21, 2022 REMANDED Service connection for right ear hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from January 1963 to May 1966. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2013 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in May 2019. This matter was remanded by the Board in December 2019 for additional development. Most recently, in an October 2020 decision, the Board denied service connection for right ear hearing loss. The Veteran appealed the Board's October 2020 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), which in a November 2021 order, granted the parties' joint motions for remand (JMR), vacating the Board's October 2020 decision and remanding the claim for compliance with the terms of the JMR. 1. Service connection for right ear hearing loss is remanded. In the November 2021 joint motion for remand, the parties determined that the Board relied on an inadequate VA examination report as the November 2021 examination did not discuss the lay evidence of record. The Board notes that the Veteran a June 2020 rating decision granted service connection for left ear hearing loss and bilateral tinnitus. In June 2014, the Veteran submitted a statement noting that his hearing problems did not manifest until the mid-1970s when the people around him noticed his hearing difficulties. He stated that after military service, there are no extraordinary causes of possible damage to his hearing. The Veteran asserted that his hearing loss was a slow and obscure progression, which is why medical testing and treatment did not occur until 2010. Further, during the May 2019 hearing, the Veteran testified that he experienced significant acoustic trauma as a weapons control system technician on the F-105 Fighter bomber. He stated that he did not have hearing loss or tinnitus prior to service, and he was exposed to minimal occupational noise exposure while working for NASA and later as a police officer after service. Thus, the Board must remand this matter for compliance with the Court's November 2021 order granting the parties' joint motion to remand and obtain a new examination. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998); see also Forcier v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 414, 425 (2006) (holding that the duty to ensure compliance with the Court's order extends to the terms of the agreement struck by the parties that forms the basis of the joint motion to remand); cf. McBurney v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 136, 140 (2009) (Board has a duty on remand to ensure compliance with the favorable terms stated in the [JMR] or explain why the terms will not be fulfilled.). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination (or telehealth interview, records review, etc. if an in-person examination is not feasible) to determine the nature, onset and etiology of his right ear hearing loss. The examiner must opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's right ear hearing loss was caused by or related to service, to specifically include noise exposure while in service. In responding to the above question, please be advised that to comply with the Court order granting the parties' JMR indicated that the examiner must discuss the Veteran's lay report as to the onset of his right ear hearing loss. In reaching a conclusion, the VA examiner must acknowledge and discuss the lay and medical evidence of record, including the Veteran's testimony regarding in-service noise exposure and minimal occupational noise exposure following service. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Sara Leigh, Attorney Advisor 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.