Citation Nr: 22019794
Decision Date: 04/03/22	Archive Date: 04/03/22

DOCKET NO. 16-61 461
DATE: April 3, 2022

REMANDED

The claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran had active service from June 1978 to June 1981.

In connection with this appeal, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in February 2020. A transcript of that hearing is of record.

In December 2020, the Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss, and remanded the other issues for further development. The Veteran appealed the 2020 decision regarding service connection for bilateral hearing loss to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In November 2021, the Court granted a joint motion for partial remand (JMPR) and remanded the issue to the Board for readjudication.

The parties to the JMPR found the May 2016 VA examination to be inadequate, as the examiner had opined that the Veteran's tinnitus was "due to exposure to noise during service", but provided a negative nexus opinion for hearing loss, noting the Veteran had only a moderate risk of hazardous noise exposure during service. The JMPR indicated that this difference should be clarified. 

The matter is remanded for the following action:

Obtain a medical opinion to assess the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. If a physical examination is necessary to answer the Board's questions, one should be scheduled. The examiner should review the JMPR regarding why the May 2016 VA nexus opinion for bilateral hearing loss was found to be inadequate (see 11/15/2021 document entitled "CAVC Decision"), and answer the following questions:  

a) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss began in or was otherwise caused by his conceded military noise exposure?  Why or why not?

b) Is it as least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was caused by his service-connected tinnitus? Why or why not? 

c) Is it as least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was aggravated (made worse) by his service-connected tinnitus? Why or why not? 

 

MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Gadson, Elizabeth A.

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.