Citation Nr: 18140063 Decision Date: 10/02/18 Archive Date: 10/02/18 DOCKET NO. 17-04 682A DATE: October 2, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, claimed as a heart murmur, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from January 1955 to September 1958. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Phoenix, Arizona. These matters are currently under the jurisdiction of the Manilla RO. The Board notes that during the course of the appeal, the Veteran perfected the appeal regarding issues of entitlement to increased ratings for ulcers and a nasal fracture. He also requested a hearing before a Board member on those issues. The Board will not discuss those issues since the Veteran has hearing requests pending. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability because he worked “fairly close to the flight line during service at Randolph Air Force base.” See June 2015 correspondence. Based on the Veteran’s August 1958 separation examination, his hearing at separation was normal (after conversion from ASA standard measurements to ISO-ANSI standards since separation examination prior to October 3, 1967). However, the absence of in-service evidence of a hearing disability is not always fatal to a service connection claim. See Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). Evidence of a current hearing loss disability and a medically sound basis for attributing that disability to service may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection for hearing loss where there is credible evidence of acoustic trauma due to significant noise exposure in service, post-service audiometric findings meeting the regulatory requirements for hearing loss disability for VA purposes, and a medically sound basis upon which to attribute the post-service findings to the injury in service. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). The Veteran’s DD-214 indicates that he was stationed at Randolph Air Force base; however, his military occupational specialty was lab assistant. This position would not have put him near the flight line as he contends. It is unclear if the Veteran was assigned to other areas while at the Randolph Air Force base. The Veteran’s personnel records, which would have a record of his job assignments, have not been associated with the Veteran’s claims folder. Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to obtain the Veteran’s personnel records. Further, in a May 1996 correspondence, the Veteran stated that he was recently awarded Social Security Administration disability benefits. The Court has held that the duty to assist includes requesting information and records from the SSA which were relied upon in any disability determination. See Hayes v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1996). Accordingly, the Veteran’s SSA records should be obtained on remand. Finally, in November 2015, the Veteran submitted several medical articles which support the conclusion that a heart disability may cause auditory problems. Although the Veteran is not service connected for a heart disability, the issue of entitlement to service connection for a heart disability is currently on appeal. The Board finds that a remand is necessary to obtain a medical opinion to determine the etiology of his bilateral hearing loss disability as there is evidence that it may be directly related to service or another disability. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, claimed as a heart murmur is remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a heart disability because he was diagnosed with a heart murmur during basic training after seeking treatment for an upper respiratory infection and was later told that his heart problem was due to a leaky aortic valve. See June 2015 correspondence. The Veteran has been diagnosed with coronary artery disease. However, the Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any heart murmur diagnoses. A medical record, which appears to be dated in 1983, indicates that the Veteran was treated for upper respiratory problems and chest pain. It is unclear if there are missing treatment records as the Veteran stated that he was hospitalized during basic training and no hospitalization records from the Sampson Air Force base have been associated with the Veteran’s electronic claims folder. On remand, the RO should attempt to obtain the Veteran’s hospitalization records from the Sampson Air Force base in 1955. After those records have been obtained, the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the etiology of his heart disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all records from the Social Security Administration, to include all awards of disability benefits and any underlying records used in reaching the determination. See May 1996 correspondence. All efforts to obtain Social Security records should be fully documented, and a negative response must be provided if records are not available. 2. The AOJ should contact the service department and appropriate records custodian, to include the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) or other appropriate repository of records and request the Veteran’s complete service personnel records. 3. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination to determine the etiology of his bilateral hearing loss disability. The Veteran’s electronic claims file, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the opinion. The examiner is requested to review the claims file and offer an opinion as to the following: Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability had its onset in service or is otherwise related to service. The examiner is requested to address the medical articles submitted by the Veteran which conclude that a heart disability may cause audiological problems. In rendering the above opinion, the examiner is advised that the absence of in-service evidence of a hearing disability during service is not always fatal to a service connection claim. See Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). Evidence of a current hearing loss disability and a medically sound basis for attributing that disability to service may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection for hearing loss where there is credible evidence of acoustic trauma due to significant noise exposure in service, post-service audiometric findings meeting the regulatory requirements for hearing loss disability for VA purposes, and a medically sound basis upon which to attribute the post-service findings to the injury in service. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). If the requested opinion(s) cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the examiner(s) should so state and explain why an opinion would be speculative, including noting whether there is additional information that could enable the examiner to provide the necessary opinion or whether the inability to provide the opinion was based on the limits of medical knowledge. 4. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the etiology of his heart disability. The Veteran’s electronic claims file, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the opinion. The examiner is requested to review the claims file and offer an opinion as to the following: Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s heart disability had its onset in service or is otherwise related to service. A complete rationale should be provided for all opinions. The examiner should also address the Veteran’s lay statements, including the assertion that he was diagnosed with a heart murmur during basic training. 5. After completing the requested actions, and any additional development deemed warranted, readjudicate the claims in light of all pertinent evidence and legal authority. If the benefits sought remain denied, furnish to the Veteran a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afford them the appropriate time period for response before the claims file is returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. MICHAEL A PAPPAS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. Baskerville, Counsel