Citation Nr: 0813489 Decision Date: 04/24/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 05-13 866 ) DATE ) ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston- Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. A. Jonas, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from September 1966 to August 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from November 2004 and September 2005 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The September 2005 rating decision assigned an initial evaluation of 0 percent for hearing loss, effective May 11, 2004. The veteran testified at a Board hearing in March 2008. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The veteran underwent a VA examination in July 2004. The claims file was not available to the examiner. During the March 2008 Board hearing, the veteran testified that his wife complains more often about the volume of the television and stereo, thus suggesting that his hearing has gotten worse. Also, the veteran testified that the ringing in his ears is constant. This is not consistent with the July 2004 VA examination where the examiner noted tinnitus only after noise exposure. Due to all of these reasons, VA should conduct another examination. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997) (VA should have scheduled another examination where the appellant complained of increased hearing loss two years after his last audiology examination). The appellant is hereby notified that it is the appellant's responsibility to report for the examination and to cooperate in the development of the case, and that the consequences of failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158 and 3.655 (2007). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the veteran for an examination to determine the nature and severity of his hearing loss. Also, the examiner should determine if the veteran has tinnitus and whether it is as likely as not that the tinnitus was caused by active duty service. The claims folder must be made available for the examiner to review. All indicated studies should be performed, and all findings should be reported in detail. 2. Readjudicate the issues on appeal in light of all of the evidence of record. If the benefit is not granted, furnish the veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case and afford an opportunity to respond before returning the record to the Board for future review. 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. 2007). _________________________________________________ MARY GALLAGHER 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).