Citation Nr: 1320244 Decision Date: 06/24/13 Archive Date: 07/02/13 DOCKET NO. 09-48 365 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for bilateral hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Juliano, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1984 to July 1988. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2008 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO) located in Houston, Texas. By way of background, a September 2005 rating decision granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss, effective February 17, 2005, and assigned a noncompensable rating. In March 2008, the Veteran filed a claim for an increased rating. The September 2008 rating decision granted a higher 20 percent rating, effective March 31, 2008 (the date of the claim), which rating decision the Veteran appealed herein. A Travel Board hearing was scheduled for February 15, 2013 at the RO in Houston, Texas. In January 2013, however, the Veteran submitted a written request to cancel the scheduled Travel Board hearing. Therefore, his request for a Board hearing is considered withdrawn, and this matter is ready for further review. 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's bilateral hearing loss is currently assigned a 20 percent disability rating under Diagnostic Code 6100, effective March 31, 2008. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 (2012). The Veteran seeks an increased rating. After the Veteran filed his increased rating claim, he was provided with VA examinations in June 2008 and June 2012, and he was also provided with a prior August 2005 VA examination. The Veteran's representative apparently asserts in a May 2013 brief that subsequent to the June 2008 VA examination, the Veteran submitted additional evidence for consideration consisting of a treatment record from a VA medical center in Texas reflecting a "more severe bilateral hearing loss scenario, adding that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is so severe that use of the speech discrimination scores are not allowed." While the Board acknowledges several VA treatment records associated with the paper and electronic claims files dated from 2008 to 2012, the Board notes that there are no records of audiological treatment or any other notations consistent with the assertion made by the Veteran's representative in the May 2013 brief. Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is necessary so that the Veteran may identify the date and location of VA treatment referenced in the May 2013 brief, and to ensure that any VA audiological records dated from 2008 to present have been associated with the claims file. As noted above, the claims file includes VA audiological examination reports dated in August 2005, June 2008, and June 2012. The Board notes that there is some disparity in comparing the puretone thresholds and speech discrimination scores from the June 2012 VA examination report to the June 2008 VA examination report (although not so much as compared to a prior August 2005 VA examination report). For example, the June 2012 VA examination report reflects puretone threshold averages for the right ear of 22 decibels and for the left ear of 28 decibels, whereas the June 2008 VA examination report reflects pure tone threshold averages for the right ear of 68 decibels and for the left ear of 71 decibels. Similarly, the June 2012 VA examination report reflects speech discrimination scores of 100 percent bilaterally, whereas the June 2008 VA examination report reflects scores of 80 percent for the right ear and 76 percent for the left ear. In addition, the June 2012 VA examination report reflects a diagnosis for the right ear of normal hearing, whereas the June 2008 VA examination report reflects a right ear diagnosis of moderate-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss. Given these disparities, the Board finds that a remand is also necessary to provide the Veteran with one more VA examination to address the current severity of his bilateral hearing loss. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify the date and location of the VA audiological treatment referenced in his May 2013 brief (noted as in Texas, but which particular VA medical facility was not specified), and obtain any records so identified and associate them with the paper or electronic claims file. If any of the records identified are found to unavailable, this should be specifically noted in the claims file. 2. Obtain copies of all of the Veteran's VA audiological records dated from 2008 to present and associate them with the paper or electronic claims file. 3. Provide the Veteran with a new VA examination to address the current severity of his service- connected bilateral hearing loss. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner and pertinent documents therein should be reviewed by the examiner. All necessary tests and studies, to include audiometric testing, should be accomplished, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail. Speech recognition scores should be recorded using the Maryland CNC test. 4. Then, readjudicate the claim. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran should be provided a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). After the Veteran and his representative have been given the applicable time to submit additional argument, the claim should be returned to the Board for further 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ BETHANY L. BUCK 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).