Citation Nr: 1323718 Decision Date: 07/25/13 Archive Date: 08/06/13 DOCKET NO. 11-26 793 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee THE ISSUES 1. Whether the reduction from 60 percent to 40 percent for bilateral hearing loss, effective June 1, 2011, was proper. 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU). REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran and J.G. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. B. Yantz, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from February 1943 to January 1946. These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from May 2010 and March 2011 rating decisions of the Nashville, Tennessee Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2010, a hearing was held before a Decision Review Officer (DRO) at the RO. In June 2013, a videoconference hearing was held before the undersigned. Transcripts of these hearings are associated with the Veteran's claims file. The Board notes that it has reviewed both the Veteran's physical claims file and "Virtual VA" (VA's electronic data storage system) to ensure that the complete record is considered. 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 action on his part is required. REMAND Bilateral Hearing Loss The Veteran was most recently afforded a VA examination for his bilateral hearing loss disability in February 2011. Thereafter, his rating for bilateral hearing loss was reduced from 60 percent to 40 percent, effective June 1, 2011. Given the allegations of worsening since at his June 2013 hearing, a contemporaneous examination to assess the severity of this disability is necessary. TDIU The claim for a TDIU rating is inextricably intertwined with the other claim on appeal, as the evidence received in connection with the other claim could materially affect the outcome of the TDIU claim. See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (two issues are "inextricably intertwined" when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision cannot be rendered unless both are adjudicated). Therefore, the claim for a TDIU must be readjudicated after the other claim on appeal is readjudicated following the completion of the development requested on remand. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following: (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. The RO should arrange for an audiological evaluation of the Veteran (with audiometry) to determine the current severity of his bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran's entire record (to include the claims file with this remand and the records in Virtual VA), as well as the criteria for rating bilateral hearing loss, must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. All clinical findings should be reported in detail. The report of examination must include the examiner's discussion of the impact the hearing loss has/would be expected to have on the Veteran's everyday and occupational functioning. The examiner should also specifically address the extent to which the Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss disability affects his ability to obtain or retain substantially gainful employment, without regard to his age or nonservice-connected disabilities. The examiner must explain the rationale for all opinions. 2. The RO should ensure that all of the development sought is completed, arrange for any further development suggested by any additional evidence received, and then review the record and readjudicate the claims on appeal (TDIU after any further development indicated, and in light of the determination made on the other issue). If either benefit sought remains denied, the RO should issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and afford the Veteran and his representative the opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned 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). _________________________________________________ GEORGE R. SENYK 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).