Citation Nr: 1322871 Decision Date: 07/17/13 Archive Date: 07/24/13 DOCKET NO. 06-28 609 ) 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: Tennessee Department of Veterans' Affairs WITNESSES AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL Appellant and spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James R. Siegel, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1969 to June 1971. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2008 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that concluded new and material evidence had not been received to reopen a claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss. This case was originally before the Board in April 2012, at which time it was remanded to ensure due process. In September 2012, the Board found the evidence was new and material evidence, and remanded the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss for additional development. The case is again before the Board for appellate consideration. By rating action dated May 2013, the RO granted service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder and tinnitus. Accordingly, this decision is limited to the issue set forth on the cover page. 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 asserts service connection is warranted for bilateral hearing loss. He claims he was exposed to loud noise during service. The service treatment records disclose no complaints or findings pertaining to hearing loss. An audiometric examination on the separation examination in June 1971 was normal. The Veteran was hospitalized by the VA for unrelated complaints in October 1972. It was indicated he did not have a hearing loss. A June 2003 VA outpatient treatment note reflects that a review of systems was positive for hearing loss. In December 2007, the Veteran asserted he was subjected to noise from cannon fire. The assessment was mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. The next month, he again reported significant noise exposure during service and that he had no significant exposure following service. The Veteran was afforded an audiometric examination by the VA in April 2013. It was noted he had a sensorineural hearing loss in each ear. The examiner concluded it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's hearing loss was caused by or a result of an event in service. She related the Veteran stated he was exposed to live fire in service and that he had first noted a decrease in hearing in service. The Board notes the May 2013 supplemental statement of the case that continued the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss was based, in part, on an opinion procured by the Appeals Management Center (AMC). This opinion was written by a practitioner who appears to be a podiatrist. She rendered an opinion concerning the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. The Board has recently received a June 2013 statement from L. E. Duberstein, M.D.. Dr. Duberstein commented that it was well known that tinnitus and hearing loss could both be inner ear problems. Dr. Duberstein thus essentially questioned why VA saw fit to service connect tinnitus but deny hearing loss. The Board regrets further delay in appellate review, the medical clarification is necessary to allow the Board to undertake informed appellate review. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Send the claims folder to the examiner who conducted the April 2013 VA audiometric examination. She should provide an opinion concerning whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or higher) that the Veteran's hearing loss is related to service, to include any noise exposure therein. She should consider the fact the Veteran's hearing was normal on the separation examination in June 1971, and that he did not have a hearing loss when hospitalized by the VA in October 1972. She should also comment on the June 2013 statement from Dr. Duberstein. The rationale for any opinion should be set forth. If the examiner who conducted the April 2013 examination is not available, a VA audiometric examination should be scheduled (with the claims file to be reviewed by the examiner) and the examiner should be requested to respond to the same questions. 2. Following completion of the above, the RO should review the evidence and determine whether the Veteran's claim may be granted. If not, he and his representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and be provided an opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. 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). _________________________________________________ ALAN S. PEEVY 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).