Citation Nr: 1323262	
Decision Date: 07/22/13    Archive Date: 08/01/13

DOCKET NO.  10-28 163	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Denver, Colorado


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss with otitis media, rated as noncompensably disabling prior to January 18, 2013, and as 40 percent disabling since that date.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

B. Elwood, Associate Counsel





REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from May 1955 to March 1957.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Denver, Colorado.  In that decision, the RO denied entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss with otitis media.  In April 2013, the RO granted an increased (40 percent) rating, effective January 18, 2013.  (In July 2013, the Board granted the Veteran's motion to advance this appeal on its docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900 (c) (2012).  38 U.S.C.A. § 7107 (a)(2) (West 2002).)

The Veteran submitted an audiology examination report from Miracle-Ear Center in Greeley, Colorado dated in November 2012.  Although the examination report reflects that speech recognition ability was recorded as being 50 percent in the right ear and 70 percent in the left ear, it is unclear whether the reported speech recognition thresholds were obtained using the Maryland CNC test as required by 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 (2012).  Thus, a remand is necessary to seek clarification from Miracle-Ear as to what standard was used to test the Veteran's speech recognition ability.  See Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 259, 269 (2011) (clarification from a private medical examiner must be sought when an examination report is unclear or insufficient and the missing information is relevant, factual, and objective).

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

1.  Ask Miracle-Ear Center in Greeley, Colorado to clarify whether the speech recognition data recorded during the November 2012 examination was obtained using the Maryland CNC test or another standard.  Ask the Veteran for any necessary assistance in obtaining this clarification.

2.  If a benefit sought on appeal remains denied and any additional relevant evidence is associated with the claims file, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) shall issue a supplemental statement of the case.  After the Veteran is given an opportunity to respond, the case should be returned to the Board.

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 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. 2013).



________________________________
MARK. F. HALSEY
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board 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).