Citation Nr: 22017559 Decision Date: 03/25/22 Archive Date: 03/25/22 DOCKET NO. 19-11 682 DATE: March 25, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1966 to January 1968. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2016 rating decision. In November 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a videoconference hearing. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The Veteran filed a service-connection claim for tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss in March 2016. See March 2016 VA Form 21-536EZ; see also March 2016 VA Form 21-4138. There is no dispute that the Veteran has current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus disabilities. See July 2016 VA examination report. Further, the Regional Office has conceded that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise while in service, and the Board finds no reason to call the Veteran's account of having experienced such exposure. See March 2019 Statement of the Case. Therefore, the key question at issue is whether a relationship exists between his current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus disabilities and his period of service. The VA scheduled the Veteran for a VA audiological examination in July 2016 to assess the nature and etiology of his claimed disabilities. At that examination, a bilateral hearing loss disability was shown by audiometric test results. The Veteran reported that he had experienced a bilateral hearing loss, and he stated it had begun several years ago. The Veteran also reported recurrent tinnitus that had begun five to six years ago. The VA examiner remarked that the Veteran had no complaints of ear pain, drainage, dizziness, or general pain; and no history of ear infections, ear surgery, or hearing aid use. The examiner noted that the Veteran reported that he had served in the army heavy artillery from February 1966 to January 1968, and that he reported noise exposure from 8-inch Howitzers, artillery, and combat in Vietnam, with the use of hearing protection most of the time. The examiner noted that the Veteran reported no history of occupational noise exposure or head injury, but that he had a history of hunting for 30 years with hearing protection as well as two brothers with hearing loss, one due to service and the other due to aging. As a result of the examination, the VA examiner opined that, based on the lack of proximity between the dates of service and the reported onset of the hearing loss and tinnitus, it is his opinion that the Veteran's complaints of hearing loss and tinnitus are less likely than not related to his military service or his MOS of heavy artillery. See July 2016 VA examination report. The Board finds that the medical opinion is not adequately supported. While it may be true that a gap in time between actual noise exposure and symptoms of hearing loss or tinnitus bears on the question at issue, the examiner did not explain why, from a medical perspective, such would be the case. It is also noted that although the Veteran denied symptoms of hearing loss and tinnitus when seeking private care in 2015 and 2016, and reported only a recent history of tinnitus at the July 2016 examination, he has since reported that his hearing loss and tinnitus symptoms began in service and worsened over time. On remand, another examination should be scheduled, and an opinion obtained addressing the etiology of the Veteran's conditions. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an audiological examination. The examiner should review the claims file, to include the July 2016 examination report and the November 2021 hearing transcript. The examiner should take a history from the Veteran as to the progression of his symptoms. After review of the record, interview and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should respond to the following: a) Is it at least as likely as not (approximately 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability had its onset in, or is otherwise related to his period of active-duty service, to include in-service noise exposure? b) Is it at least as likely as not (approximately 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's tinnitus disability had its onset in, or is otherwise related to his period of active-duty service, to include in-service noise exposure? The examiner should consider the Veteran's reports of history. If there is medical reason to either support or call into question the Veteran's report of history as to the progression of his symptoms, this should be explained. Please note that even if there are medical reasons to call into question a longstanding history of hearing loss and tinnitus, an opinion must still be provided as to whether a relationship to service may exist based on a delayed onset theory of entitlement. All opinions should be supported by a medical explanation or rationale. 2. After the development requested is completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Fulmer, 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.