Citation Nr: 1323410 Decision Date: 07/23/13 Archive Date: 08/01/13 DOCKET NO. 11-25 076 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Appellant (Veteran) represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran and spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Christopher McEntee, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1951 to December 1952. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a July 2011 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio. In June 2013, the Veteran testified in a Board hearing at the RO. A transcript of the hearing has been included in the claims file. The Board notes that it has reviewed the Veteran's claims file, to include documents of record that have been included in his virtual VA folder. No evidence has been added to the record since the most-recent supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) issued in this matter in December 2012. 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31, 20.1304(c) (2012). 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 Veteran if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran maintains that acoustic trauma during service caused in-service hearing loss and tinnitus that has continued since discharge in December 1952. VA treatment records indicate that the Veteran has been treated for current hearing loss and tinnitus disorders. He has not been provided a VA compensation examination into his claims, however. The Board finds remand warranted so that such an examination can be conducted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4) (2012); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Moreover, additional development should be conducted to ensure that all outstanding relevant treatment records are included in the claims. In his September 2011 substantive appeal, the Veteran indicated that he received private ear treatment following service from a "Dr. Witt" at University Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio. Efforts should be undertaken to obtain such records if available. Further, as the Veteran receives treatment through VA, any additional VA treatment records dating from December 2012 should be obtained on remand. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). 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. Obtain recent VA treatment records pertaining to the Veteran which are not already associated with the record. 2. Request that the Veteran provide or identify any non-VA treatment records that are not already of record, including those of a Dr. Witt, who reportedly treated the Veteran following service. Provided that the Veteran provides any necessary authorization forms, attempt to obtain the identified records. If, after making reasonable efforts to obtain such records, it is concluded that it is reasonably certain they do not exist or further efforts to obtain them would be futile, the AMC must notify the Veteran and (a) identify the specific records the AMC is unable to obtain; (b) briefly explain the efforts that the AMC made to obtain those records; (c) describe any further action to be taken by the AMC with respect to the claim; and (d) inform the Veteran that he is ultimately responsible for providing the evidence. The Veteran must then be given an opportunity to respond. 3. After the development has been conducted, schedule the Veteran for an audiological examination with an appropriate professional. The entire claims file must be made available to the examiner designated to examine the Veteran. All appropriate tests and studies should be accomplished, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail. The examiner is asked to express an opinion on the following questions: a) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or higher) that the current hearing loss disability began in or is related to service, including the Veteran's claimed in-service acoustic trauma? Please support your answer with medical principles and evidence in the claims file. b) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or higher) that the current tinnitus disorder began in or is related to service, including the Veteran's claimed in-service acoustic trauma? Please support your answer with medical principles and evidence in the claims file. The examiner's attention is directed to the Veteran's lay statements that he experienced certain adverse symptomatology during service and in the years following service. A complete rationale for any opinion offered must be included in the report, and an explanation of the medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. 4. After the requested examination has been completed, the examination report should be reviewed to ensure that it is in complete compliance with the directives of this remand. The examination report should be returned to the examiner if deficient in any manner. 5. Then, after ensuring the examination report is adequate and undertaking any additional development action that is deemed warranted, readjudicate the claims. If a claim remains denied, issue a SSOC and allow the appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). These claims 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). _________________________________________________ S.S. TOTH 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).