Citation Nr: 1322340 Decision Date: 07/12/13 Archive Date: 07/18/13 DOCKET NO. 10-28 304 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Florida Department of Veterans Affairs WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Erdheim, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1953 to March 1955. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a November 2008 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that denied the claims on appeal. In June 2013, the Veteran testified before the Board at a hearing held at the RO. 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 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 Additional development is necessary prior to further disposition of the claims. The Veteran contends that his current hearing loss and tinnitus were caused or aggravated by his service, specifically, during basic training when he would shoot on the rifle range and experienced a ringing in his ears. He contends that he was treated at sick call, or was hospitalized, for ringing that did not cease for at least two to three weeks. He contends that ever since service, his hearing has never been the same but that he lived with the decreased hearing and intermittent tinnitus for many years in order to work and have a family. He also contends that while in service, he worked as a clerk typist and was constantly around key punch machines, printers, collators, and other very noise equipment. He has submitted a statement from a fellow serviceman who recalled that the Veteran had trouble hearing from his left ear while in service. Available service treatment records, which includes only a March 1955 separation examination, is negative for an indication of hearing loss or tinnitus in service. Whisper voice testing was 15/15, bilaterally. Post-service treatment records demonstrate a current diagnosis of hearing loss. In this case, the Board finds that the Veteran's testimony regarding prolonged tinnitus and a loss of hearing in service to be credible and consistent with his service. To date, a VA examiner has not provided an opinion as to the etiology of the Veteran's hearing loss or tinnitus. Accordingly, a VA examination and opinion should be scheduled. 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. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the etiology of his hearing loss and tinnitus. The examiner should review the claims file. The examiner should provide a clear rationale for all opinions reached. Is it at least as likely as not (within the realm of 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's a) hearing loss and/or b) tinnitus were caused or aggravated by his service, taking into account the Veteran's credible testimony that while on the firing range during basic training he experienced tinnitus that lasted for an extended period of time, that his hearing was never the same since that noise exposure, and that he also worked as a clerked typist in service and was exposed to the loud machines in that position? 2. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the Veteran's claims should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the claims remain denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the outcome of this case. The Veteran need take no action until so informed. The purpose of this REMAND is to ensure compliance with due process considerations. The purpose of the examination requested in this remand is to obtain information or evidence (or both) which may be dispositive of the appeal. Therefore, the Veteran is hereby placed on notice that pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (2012) failure to cooperate by attending the requested VA examination may result in an adverse determination. See Connolly v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 566, 569 (1991). 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). _________________________________________________ MILO H. HAWLEY 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).