Citation Nr: 1301312 Decision Date: 01/14/13 Archive Date: 01/23/13 DOCKET NO. 08-35 379 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma THE ISSUE Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Helena M. Walker, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1962 to February 1966. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a January 2008 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma, which denied a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Acting Veterans Law Judge (AVLJ) in January 2012. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND Upon preliminary review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that further evidentiary development is necessary regarding his increased rating claim for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran's most recent VA audiological examination was performed in August 2010. During his January 2012 hearing, the Veteran testified that his hearing has become significantly worse since that examination. He also endorsed increased difficulty understanding words and his hearing aids are ineffective. Where a veteran asserts that a disability has worsened since his last VA examination, and the last examination is too remote to constitute a contemporaneous examination, a new examination is required. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A (d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). See also Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121 (1991). The Board further notes the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that, "in addition to dictating objective test results, a VA audiologist must fully describe the functional effects caused by a hearing disability in his or her final report." Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447, 455 (2007). As such, the new VA examination should also include a discussion compliant with Martinak. Thus, the Veteran should be afforded a current VA examination to assess the current severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO or the AMC should obtain any outstanding private or VA treatment records related to the Veteran's claimed disability 2. Then, the Veteran should be afforded a VA audiological evaluation by an examiner with sufficient expertise to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss disability. The claims file and any pertinent evidence in Virtual VA should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner, and any indicated audiological studies should be performed. In addition to dictating objective test results (Maryland CNC and pure tone threshold testing), the examiner's report should fully describe the effects of the Veteran's hearing loss disability on his occupational functioning and daily activities. See Revised Disability Examination Worksheets, Fast Letter 07-10 (Dep't of Veterans Affairs Veterans Apr. 24, 2007). The RO or the AMC should ensure that the examiner provides all information required for rating purposes. 3. The RO or the AMC should also undertake any other development it determines to be warranted. 4. Then, the RO or the AMC should readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, the RO or the AMC should furnish to the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case and afford them the requisite opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board for further appellate action. By this remand, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the Veteran until he is otherwise notified but he has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ A. C. MACKENZIE Acting 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) (2012).