Citation Nr: 1318792	
Decision Date: 06/10/13    Archive Date: 06/21/13

DOCKET NO.  12-35 501	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas



THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss disability.



REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Texas Veterans Commission



ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. Hager, Counsel



INTRODUCTION

Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012).  38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002).

The Veteran served on active duty from June 1953 to May 1955.
 
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) Houston, Texas.  In that decision, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability and assigned a noncompensable rating.  The Veteran timely appealed the initial rating assigned.

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

The Veteran claims that a higher initial rating is warranted for his bilateral hearing loss disability.  Two audiometric examinations were conducted during the appeal period, one by the Family Hearing Aid Center in May 2011 and one by a VA audiologist in February 2012.  The audiometric test scores on the February 2012 VA examination showed noncompensable hearing loss when the Tables in the applicable VA regulations were applied.  The May 2011 Family Hearing Aid Center audiometric test scores showed potentially compensable hearing loss when the Tables in the applicable VA regulations were applied.  VA regulations specifically require that examination for hearing impairment include Maryland CNC speech discrimination test scores.  It is not clear from the May 2011 Family Hearing Aid Center test results whether the Maryland CNC or a different speech discrimination test was used.  In addressing this precise situation, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that the Board is required to seek clarification from the private audiologist as to whether the Maryland CNC test was used.  Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 259 (2011).  Consequently, a remand is warranted to seek such clarification.

In addition, the Veteran contended in his December 2012 substantive appeal (VA Form 9) that he could not understand the heavily accented speech of the audiologist who conducted the February 2012 VA examination and therefore did not accurately respond to the test questions.  He requested a new VA audiological examination.  Given this contention and the discrepancy between the VA and private audiometric results noted above, the Board finds that a new VA audiological examination is warranted.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions:

(Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012).  Expedited handling is requested.)

1.  Request clarification from the Family Hearing Aid Center as to whether the speech recognition scores on the Veteran's May 2011 audiometric testing were determined using the Maryland CNC list or another list.  If the information requested above cannot be obtained, such should be noted in the record.

2.  Schedule a new VA audiological examination with an audiologist other than the one who conducted the February 2012 examination.  The examination report should include pure tone threshold averages and the results of Maryland CNC speech discrimination testing.  The examiner should also fully describe the functional effects caused by Veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability.  The claims folder should be made available to the examiner prior to entry of any findings.

3.  After the above development has been completed, readjudicate the claim for entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss disability.  If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case and return the case to the Board.

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).


_________________________________________________
MICHAEL D. LYON 
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 the appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).