Citation Nr: 0810983 Decision Date: 04/03/08 Archive Date: 04/14/08 DOCKET NO. 05-31 491 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in No. Little Rock, Arkansas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Robert J. Burriesci, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from July 1949 to March 1951, May 1954 to June 1956, and October 1957 to January 1958. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2004 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in North Little Rock, Arkansas. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify you if further action is required on your part. REMAND The veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The veteran contends that his hearing loss is due to his exposure to loud noise while serving in Battery C, 31st Field Artillery Battalion, 7th Infantry Division and that his hearing has gradually worsened since service. The veteran's service medical records do not reveal complaint, diagnosis, or treatment for bilateral hearing loss. After separation from service, the veteran indicated that he was first treated for hearing loss in the 1970's by Dr. W., an audiologist, in Missouri. The veteran reported that Dr. W. is deceased and no records are available. The veteran stated that he was treated for hearing loss in the 1980's by Dr. B. at White River Medical Center in Batesville, Arkansas. The veteran reported that Dr. B. subsequently left White River Medical Center, with his records, and he has not been able to locate the doctor subsequently. The veteran underwent a private hearing evaluation in February 2000 performed by Dr. J.H. Dr. J.H. reported that the audiometry performed at that time revealed "mild sloping to severe sensorineural hearing loss for the right ear and a mild sloping to profound sensorineural hearing loss for the left ear." Dr. J.H. did not render an opinion on the etiology of the veteran's hearing loss. The veteran was treated by VA in March to September 2004 for hearing loss. The veteran reported that he had had hearing loss since service and that he had been exposed to artillery fire while in service. The treatment notes stated that the veteran had severe sensorineural hearing loss in the right ear and profound sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear. The VA outpatient records do not reveal an opinion on an etiology of the veteran's hearing loss. In March 2005, the veteran was afforded a VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination in conjunction with his claim. The results of the audiological examinations performed indicate that the veteran has a hearing loss disability as defined by 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. However, the examiner did not provide an opinion as to whether the veteran's hearing loss was related to the veteran's military service, in particular to acoustic trauma. In light of the March 2003 examiner's inability to render an opinion on whether the veteran's hearing loss was related to the veteran's military service, the Board finds the examination to be inadequate and, therefore, the veteran should be afforded another medical examination. See Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121 (1991); Hayes v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 67, 73 (1996); 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 (2007). VA is required to make reasonable efforts to help a claimant obtain records relevant to his claim, whether or not the records are in Federal custody. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(b)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1). Accordingly, the RO should request VA medical records pertaining to the veteran that are dated from September 27, 2004, to the present. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to obtain VA medical records pertaining to the veteran that are dated after September 27, 2004. In addition, attempt to obtain any other records the veteran identifies as potentially relevant, provided that any necessary release forms are completed. 2. After completion of the above development, arrange for the veteran to undergo an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature, extent, onset and etiology of any hearing loss found to be present. The claims folder should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. All indicated studies, including an audiological evaluation, should be performed, and all findings should be reported in detail. The examiner should comment on the veteran's report regarding the onset and continuity of symptomatology and opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the veteran's hearing loss disability is etiologically related to or had its onset during service, and particularly, to his report of in-service acoustic trauma. The rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided in a report. 3. Thereafter, adjudicate the veteran's claim. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the RO should issue the veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case and provide the veteran an opportunity to respond. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2006). _________________________________________________ S. S. TOTH Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2007).