Citation Nr: 1322447 Decision Date: 07/15/13 Archive Date: 07/24/13 DOCKET NO. 10-08 550A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Denver, Colorado THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Colorado Division of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Harold A. Beach, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from October 1967 to July 1969. He had service in the Republic of Vietnam, where his primary duties were as a light weapons infantryman. His awards and decorations included the Purple Heart Medal. This matter came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2009 rating decision by the RO. After reviewing the Veteran's claims file, the Board finds that additional development of the record is warranted prior to further appellate consideration. Accordingly, 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 seeks entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability. He contends that his hearing loss disability is primarily the result of noise exposure in service. In particular, he cites an April 1968 incident in which he was wounded in combat. He sustained multiple shell fragment wounds of the lumbar spine, posterior left chest, abdomen, and legs. He states that shortly after that incident, he noticed that he had difficulty hearing. He stated that shortly after his separation from service in July 1969, he realized that he was having difficulty hearing while attending lectures. He further states that such difficulty has continued to this day. Therefore, he maintains that service connection for a hearing loss disability is warranted. Service connection may be granted for disability or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. Generally, the evidence must show (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) the existence of the disease or injury in service, and; (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service The Veteran is competent to report his experiences in service. Moreover, his reports of noise exposure are consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of a combat infantryman. As such, the Board finds that he had the requisite noise exposure in service. For VA purposes, impaired hearing is considered a disability, when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. The Board finds that audiologic examination performed at VA in July 2009 confirms that the Veteran has a current bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. The salient question then is whether that disorder had its onset in or as a result of service. In July 2009, VA examined the Veteran to resolve that question. The VA examiner found that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's hearing loss disability was the result service. In this regard, the VA examiner noted that the Veteran's hearing was within normal limits at the time of his separation from service. However, it is well established law that the failure to meet the VA hearing loss criteria at the time of a veteran's separation from active service is not necessarily a bar to service connection. Even though a claimant does not demonstrate a hearing loss disability at the time of his separation form service, he may still establish service connection by submitting evidence that the current hearing loss disability is related to service. Therefore, the Board finds the recent VA examination inadequate for rating purposes and that an addendum should be obtained. In addition, any recent VA treatment records should be obtained. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Make arrangements to obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records, dated since November 2008. 2. Thereafter, return the claims file to the VA examiner who performed the July 2009 VA audiologic examination or to an equally well-qualified examiner. After reviewing the claims folder, the examiner must render an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (e.g., 50% or greater probability) that the Veteran's hearing loss had its clinical onset during active service or is related to his in-service noise exposure. In providing this opinion, the examiner must consider the Veteran's statement that he noticed hearing loss shortly after his in-service exploding grenade injury and his complaints of continuing hearing loss symptoms since that time. The examiner must provide a comprehensive report including complete rationales for all opinions and conclusions reached, citing the objective medical findings leading to the conclusions. 3. Review the claims folder and ensure that all of the foregoing development actions have been conducted and completed in full. If any development is incomplete, appropriate corrective action is to be implemented. Specific attention is directed to the examination report. If the requested report does not include adequate response(s) to the specific opinion(s) requested, the report must be returned for corrective action. 4. Finally, readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted in full, a supplemental statement of the case should be issued and the Veteran and his representative provided an opportunity to respond. The Veteran need take no action unless he is notified to do so. He has the right to submit any additional evidence and/or argument on the matters the Board has remanded to the RO. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369, 372-73 (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. 2007). _________________________________________________ P. M. DILORENZO 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).