Citation Nr: 1318728 Decision Date: 06/10/13 Archive Date: 06/21/13 DOCKET NO. 09-11 447 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Roanoke, Virginia THE ISSUE Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for the service-connected bilateral hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Mills, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1985 to July 1992. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in April 2008 by the RO. The Veteran provided testimony at a January 2013 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the Veteran's Virtual VA claims file. A review of the Virtual VA paperless claims processing system does not reveal any additional documents pertinent to the present appeal. The appeal is being remanded to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required on his part. REMAND The Veteran seeks a compensable evaluation for the service-connected bilateral hearing loss disability. At the January 2013 hearing, the Veteran testified that his hearing loss disability had increased in severity since his most recent VA examination in February 2008. Accordingly, a new VA examination to determine the severity of the bilateral service-connected hearing loss disability is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.326, 3.327 (reexaminations will be requested whenever VA determines there is a need to verify the current severity of a disability, such as when the evidence indicates there has been a material change in a disability or that the current rating may be incorrect); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); VAOPGCPREC 11-95. Also, the Board notes that the Veteran submitted an October 2008 private audiometric examination report from Affordable Hearing Solutions. The private audiological report includes a graphical representation of hearing impairment. The precise level of impairment is not clear to the Board. Also, this report shows speech discrimination findings, but there is no indication that the Maryland CNC test was employed. For VA rating purposes, an examination for hearing impairment must include a controlled speech discrimination test using the Maryland CNC and a pure tone audiometry test. 38 C.F.R. § 4.485(a). On remand, VA should request the individual who performed the October 2008 audiometric testing to indicate whether a state licensed audiologist performed the testing and clarify whether the Maryland CNC test was used. Lastly, they should provide the audiometric examination results in a numerical report, as opposed to the graph that is already of record. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The RO should take appropriate steps to contact Affordable Hearing Solutions and clarify whether the individual who performed the October 2008 audiometric testing was a state-licensed audiologist. They should also be asked to clarify whether the Maryland CNC test was used in that testing and to provide numerical designations for the auditory thresholds at the frequencies necessary to evaluate the severity of the service-connected hearing loss disability. If the RO is unable to make contact with Affordable Hearing Solutions or if an appropriate response is not received within a reasonable period of time, the RO should document this lack of a response in the claims file. 2. Once the above actions have been completed, the RO should have the Veteran scheduled for a VA examination to ascertain the severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The claims file should be made available to the examiner for review, and the examiner should indicate that the claims file was reviewed. The examination report should include results of audiological testing and findings as to the impact of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss on his ordinary activities of daily life. The examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation for his or her opinions, based on established medical principles and his or her clinical experience and medical expertise. 3. After completing all indicated development, the RO should readjudicate the claim remaining on appeal in light of all the evidence of record. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, then the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a fully responsive Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and afforded a reasonable opportunity for response. Thereafter, if indicated, the case should be returned to the Board for the purpose of appellate disposition. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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). _________________________________________________ STEPHEN L. WILKINS 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).