Citation Nr: 1320222 Decision Date: 06/21/13 Archive Date: 07/02/13 DOCKET NO. 09-38 385 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boise, Idaho THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a hearing loss disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. B. Mays, 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 had active military service from August 1950 to May 1952. This matter initially came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2008 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri, which denied the benefits sought on appeal. In an April 2008 rating decision, the Boise RO confirmed and continued the denials of these claims. On his substantive appeal, received in October 2009, the Veteran checked the box indicating that he wanted a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. Such a hearing was scheduled for July 2011, but prior to the hearing, the Veteran indicated that he would be unable to attend and asked that his case be decided based on the evidence of record. The Board also notes that the Boise, Idaho RO currently has jurisdiction of this claim. When the Veteran filed his service connection claims for hearing loss and tinnitus in December 2007, he resided in the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RO, but during the pendency of this claim, he moved to Idaho. As will be discussed below, further development is necessary. As such, 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 An additional remand is necessary to obtain any outstanding available VA treatment records identified by the Veteran. As indicated in the April 2013 remand, the Veteran reports that a medical provider at the VA in Upland, California suggested that his hearing loss and tinnitus were most likely secondary to jet engine noise during his active military service. See April 2009 notice of disagreement. Following the Board's April 2013 remand, the AMC sent a notice letter to the Veteran and added to the claims file additional VA treatment records from the Boise VAMC, but there is no indication that the identified records from the VA clinic in Upland, California were requested. The Board observes that in its September 2009 statement of the case, the RO indicated that it had reviewed Loma Linda VAMC records, which might have included some from the VA clinic in Upland; however, the Board sees no records from the Loma Linda VAMC in the Veteran's physical or virtual file. VA has constructive knowledge of documents generated by VA medical facilities even if the said records are not physically part of the claims file. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). Therefore, the VA medical records identified by the Veteran must be requested and obtained. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (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. Obtain and associate with the claims file all records of the Veteran for hearing loss and tinnitus treatment from the VA clinic in Upland, California. If these records are unavailable or the search for these records otherwise yields negative results and further attempts to obtain these records would be futile, then this must be clearly documented in the claims file and the Veteran appropriately notified. 2. Review the Veteran's claims file and ensure that the foregoing development actions have been conducted and completed in full, and that no other notification or development action, in addition to that directed above, is required. If further action is required, it should be undertaken. 3. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case. Then return the case to the Board, if otherwise in order. The Veteran need take no action until he is so informed. He 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). The purposes of this remand are to obtain additional information and comply with all due process considerations. No inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of this claim as a result of this action. 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). ____________________________________________ KELLI A. KORDICH Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs