Citation Nr: 1328473 Decision Date: 09/06/13 Archive Date: 09/16/13 DOCKET NO. 09-35 375 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Texas Veterans Commission ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Patricia Kingery, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from June 1952 to May 1956. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a May 2009 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas. The Board has not only reviewed the Veteran's physical claims file, but also his file on the "Virtual VA" system to insure a total review of the evidence. 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. 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). REMAND The Board finds that further development is required prior to adjudicating the Veteran's claims. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.9 (2012). Under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), VA has a duty to assist claimants to obtain evidence needed to substantiate a claim. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. VA's duty to assist includes providing a medical examination when it is necessary to make a decision on a claim. Id. Where VA provides the veteran with an examination in a service connection claim, the examination must be adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were incurred or caused by his military noise exposure, submitting an original claim for VA compensation benefits in January 2009. In April 2009, the Veteran underwent a VA audiological examination. The examination report notes the Veteran's had military noise exposure and a current hearing disability as defined by VA regulations. The examiner indicated that the Veteran reported that hearing loss and tinnitus had their onset in 1985. The examiner, based on this reported onset, opined that "military noise exposure is not likely responsible for [the Veteran's] hearing loss and tinnitus." The Veteran disputes that he reported the onset of hearing loss and tinnitus in 1985. In June and September 2009 statements, he stated that he finally got hearing aids in 1985 and that his hearing loss and tinnitus began in service and was caused by noise exposure in service. It is not clear from the April 2009 VA examination report what information the VA examiner based his opinion that the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus first onset in 1985, as opposed to during service as repeatedly contended by the Veteran in his subsequent statements. Moreover, the VA examiner did not address a March 2008 private audiological evaluation that found that it was as likely as not that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus began during service, as well as being as likely as not related to the Veteran's work environment as a heavy equipment operator. For these reasons, the Board finds that, although the Veteran was afforded with a VA examination, the examination report does not contain sufficient detail upon which to base a decision; therefore, the examination was inadequate and another examination is required. Additionally, it appears that the Veteran has been awarded disability benefits by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and there is no indication that the RO has attempted to obtain the complete SSA file. The basis of the Veteran's award for SSA disability benefits is unclear from the current evidence of record. As the Board cannot determine the basis for the award from the current evidence of record, it cannot rule out a reasonable possibility that the SSA records are relevant to the Veteran's current claims on appeal. Accordingly, a remand is necessary to obtain the records. See Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that has a duty to obtain SSA records where a reasonable possibility exists that the records are relevant to the Veteran's claim); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). 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 from the SSA a copy of its decision(s) awarding the Veteran disability benefits, as well as copies of all medical records underlying that determination. In requesting these records, the RO should follow the current procedures of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) with respect to requesting records from Federal facilities. All records/responses received should be associated with the claims file. 2. Then, the RO should arrange for the Veteran's claims file to be reviewed by the same examiner who prepared the April 2009 examination report (or a suitable substitute if that examiner is unavailable) for the purpose of preparing an addendum that addresses the nature and etiology of the Veteran's currently- diagnosed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether any identified hearing loss and tinnitus are at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater likelihood) etiologically-related to his military service. In providing the requested opinion, the examiner should specifically address the following: a) the March 2008 private audiological evaluation finding that it was as likely as not that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus began during service, as well as being as likely as not related to the Veteran's work environment as a heavy equipment operator; b) the April 2009 VA audiological examination report findings that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus first onset in 1985; c) the Veteran's contentions that his tinnitus and hearing loss began during or were otherwise caused by service; and, d) the Veteran's post-service occupational noise exposure. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner. The examiner should provide a clear rationale and basis for all opinions expressed. 3. Then, readjudicate the appeal. If the claim remains denied, provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case and allow an appropriate time for response. 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 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). _________________________________________________ K. J. ALIBRANDO 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).