Citation Nr: 0811229 Decision Date: 04/04/08 Archive Date: 04/14/08 DOCKET NO. 06-11 478 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Manila, the Republic of the Philippines THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a prostate disorder. 3. Entitlement to service connection for osteoarthritis of the cervical spine, lower back, shoulders and knees. 4. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder. 6. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss. WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Chaplin, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from October 1958 to February 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 2005 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Manila, the Republic of the Philippines, that denied entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, prostate disorder, osteoarthritis of the cervical spine, lower back, shoulder and knees; hypertension, heart disorder, and hearing loss. The veteran presented testimony at a personal hearing in August 2007. The appeal on the issue of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center in Washington, D.C. With regard to the other issues on appeal, the veteran has claimed that they are due to exposure to Agent Orange and in the alternative, as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II, claimed as due to exposure to Agent Orange and they will be placed under stay. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) issued a decision in Haas v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. (2006), that reversed a decision of the Board which denied service connection for disabilities claimed as a result of exposure to herbicides. VA disagrees with the Court's decision in Haas and is seeking to have that decision appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. To avoid burdens on the adjudication system, delays in the adjudication of other claims, and unnecessary expenditure of resources through remand or final adjudication of claims based on court precedent that may ultimately be overturned on appeal, on September 21, 2006, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs imposed a stay at the Board on the adjudication of claims affected by Haas. The specific claims affected by the stay include those involving claims based on herbicide exposure in which the only evidence of exposure is the receipt of the Vietnam Service Medal or service on a vessel off the shore of Vietnam. Once a final decision is reached on appeal in the Haas case, the adjudication of any cases that have been stayed will be resumed. REMAND The veteran claims that he has hearing loss which is due to noise exposure when he served on aircraft carriers in service. He has submitted a December 2005 medical certificate from a private medical doctor which shows a diagnosis of sensorineural hearing loss, probably noise induced. Prior to appellate review, a VA audiological evaluation is necessary to decide the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4) (2007). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the veteran for a VA audiological examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed hearing loss. The claims folder must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination and the review should be noted in the examination report. The report should include the results of an auditory examination with auditory thresholds and speech recognition scores. The examiner should express an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or more probability) that the veteran's claimed hearing loss resulted from exposure to acoustic trauma in service or any other aspect of service. 2. Then, readjudicate the veteran's claim for service connection for hearing loss. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow the appropriate time for response. Thereafter, return the case to the Board. 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 or the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2007). _________________________________________________ HARVEY P. ROBERTS 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).