Citation Nr: 1323853 Decision Date: 07/26/13 Archive Date: 08/06/13 DOCKET NO. 10-05 450 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUE Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD David Gratz, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1965 to July 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2009 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina, which continued the Veteran's noncompensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. 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's representative reported in his July 2013 brief that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss has worsened since the most recent VA examination, which was conducted in May 2009. The representative expressly requested that a new examination be provided. As the evidence indicates that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss may have increased in severity since the last examination, VA is required to afford him a contemporaneous VA examination to assess the current nature, extent, and severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181 (2007); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994); see also VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995), 60 Fed. Reg. 43186 (1995). As the appeal is being remanded for development, the RO should ask the Veteran to identify any additional, pertinent medical treatment that he has received, including the results of an examination by a private audiologist which the Veteran referenced in his December 2009 substantive appeal, but which VA has not yet received, and take appropriate measures to obtain those records. Any additional, pertinent VA treatment records, including those from the VAMC in Charleston, South Carolina, should either be made accessible on Virtual VA or be printed and added to the file. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992); see also Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 125 (2007) (an adequate VA medical examination must consider the Veteran's pertinent medical history). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should contact the Veteran and ask that he identify any outstanding VA and non-VA records pertaining to his bilateral hearing loss that are not already of record, including the results of an examination by a private audiologist which the Veteran referenced in his December 2009 substantive appeal, but which VA has not yet received. The RO should take appropriate measures to request copies of any outstanding records of pertinent VA or private medical treatment and associate them with the claims file. Any negative response should be in writing and associated with the claims file. 2. Notify the Veteran that he may submit lay statements of the nature and severity of his bilateral hearing loss from himself as well as from other individuals who have first-hand knowledge of such symptoms. He should be provided an appropriate amount of time to submit this lay evidence. 3. After obtaining any outstanding treatment records regarding the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss, provide him with an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and severity of that disability. The claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner and all necessary tests should be conducted. The examiner should report all pertinent findings. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for all conclusions reached and should discuss those findings in relation to the pertinent evidence of record, particularly the Veteran's previous VA examination conducted in May 2009 and any lay and clinical evidence suggesting that his overall bilateral hearing loss has worsened, resulting in more severe occupational and social impairment. The examiner should also discuss the impact that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss has on his ability to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment. 4. Then readjudicate the appeal. If the claim remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case to the Veteran and his representative and provide an opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board. The appellant 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 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). _________________________________________________ STEVEN D. REISS 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).