Citation Nr: 1320331 Decision Date: 06/24/13 Archive Date: 07/02/13 DOCKET NO. 08-31 495 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Terrence T. Griffin, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from August 1993 to April 1995. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2007 decision of the Columbia, South Carolina, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The June 2007 decision declined to reopen the service connection claim for bilateral hearing loss but relevant service department records had been associated with the claims folder prior to the decision on the matter. The June 2012 Board recharacterized the service connection claim to reflect the proper de novo standard of review. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (2012). On his October 2008 Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals, the Veteran requested a hearing in connection with his claim; however, he failed to appear for scheduled March 2010 and June 2011 Board hearings and the request is deemed withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.702(d) (2012). The Board remanded the appeal in June 2012 for additional development. Service connection for tinnitus was granted in the June 2012 Board decision but the March 2013 Supplemental Statement of the Case purports to deny the claim. The March 2013 SSOC on tinnitus is void ab inito and the RO is to implement the grant of service connection for tinnitus without delay. 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 June 2012 VA examiner stated it would be inappropriate to provide speech recognition scores "because of language difficulties, cognitive problems, inconsistent speech discrimination scores, etc." See "Speech Discrimination Score Maryland CNC word list," VA Examination Rpt., Mar. 7, 2013. Given the examiner performed all other aspects of the examination with no apparent difficulty and the Veteran may establish his service connection claim based on these examination findings, the Veteran must be provided another examination on remand and speech discrimination test results reported. In a February 2013 VA Report of General Contact, the Veteran reports receiving private treatment related to his claimed disability and the record does not demonstrate adequate efforts to obtain these records. He also receives regular VA treatment but records dated since August 2009 have not been associated with the paper or electronic claims folder. These records are to be obtained on remand. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and ascertain all sources of private treatment or evaluation for any hearing impairment condition, including as referenced in the February 2013 VA General Report of Contact. Undertake appropriate efforts to attempt to obtain any identified records. All development efforts are to be in writing and associated with the claims folder. 3. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment and/or hospitalization records dated since August 2009 related to the Veteran's hearing impairment condition. Any negative response(s) must be in writing and associated with the claims folder. 4. After the aforementioned development has been completed, schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination with an appropriate professional. The entire claims file (i.e., the paper claims file and any medical records contained in Virtual VA, CAPRI, and AMIE) must be reviewed by the examiner. If the examiner does not have access to Virtual VA, any relevant treatment records contained in the Virtual VA file that are not available on CAPRI or AMIE must be printed and associated with the paper claims file so they can be available to the examiner for review. All pertinent symptomatology and findings must be reported in detail. Any indicated diagnostic tests and studies, to include an audiogram, must be accomplished. Specifically, the results of the audiological evaluation must state, in numbers, the findings of puretone decibel loss at 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz, provide the puretone threshold average, and must also state the results of the word recognition test, in percentages, using the Maryland CNC test. The examiner must acknowledge and discuss the competent statements of the Veteran, as to in- and post-service symptoms. The examiner is to specifically report the appropriate diagnosis and, as to each diagnosed condition, provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the condition: (A) had its onset during the Veteran's period of active military service, or within one-year of separation from active military service; and/or (B) is related to the Veteran's active military service, including conceded noise exposure. The provided examination report must reflect consideration of both the medical and lay evidence of record (e.g., the Veteran's statements; March 1995 reference audiograms; etc.) and set forth a complete rationale for all findings and conclusions. The examiner must perform all necessary tests and report the findings in the examination report. If the examiner feels that the requested opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (i.e., no one could respond give medical science and the known facts) or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner (i.e., additional facts are required, of the examiner does not have the needed knowledge and training). 5. After ensuring the June 2012 Board decision granting service connection for tinnitus has been implemented, review the claims file to ensure that all of the foregoing development has been completed, and arrange for any additional development indicated. Then readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the benefit sought remains denied issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and provide the Veteran and his representative an appropriate period of time to respond. The case is to then be returned to the Board for further appellate review. 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). _________________________________________________ RONALD W. SCHOLZ 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).