Citation Nr: 18149086 Decision Date: 11/08/18 Archive Date: 11/08/18 DOCKET NO. 16-49 324 DATE: November 8, 2018 REMANDED The issue of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. The issue of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The issue of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD is remanded. The issue of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, other than PTSD, to include anxiety and depression is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND Here, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) declined to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. However, a review of the record discloses that the Veteran also seeks service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include anxiety and depression. The AOJ included these disabilities in the new and material claim; however, service connection had not been previously denied for these disabilities in a final rating decision. Thus, the Board has recharacterized the matter to include a claim of entitlement to an acquired psychiatric disability, to include anxiety and depression. See Boggs v. Peake, 520 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran first sought an audiology evaluation from VA in February 2017. A review of that record discloses an impression of left ear hearing loss, particularly a 30-dB sensorineural hearing loss at 4,000 Hz. However, the audiogram associated with this visit is not associated with the record. This record is relevant and must be obtained. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(c) (West 2014); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992) (VA medical records are in constructive possession of the agency and must be obtained if pertinent). Accordingly, the claim is remanded. 3. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. 4. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, other than PTSD, to include anxiety and depression. A July 2003 private psychiatric record indicates that the Veteran had applied for, and been denied, Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits. No records from SSA appear in the claims file, and the SSA records may contain relevant evidence as there is an indication that a psychiatric disability formed the basis of the SSA claim. See Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that only relevant SSA records must be sought). Appropriate action to obtain all records associated with any SSA claim must be accomplished before adjudication can be made on the merits. See generally Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363, 372 (1992). Upon remand of this matter, VA should attempt to obtain the records associated with the appellant's claim for SSA disability benefits and associate them with the claims file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the specific clinical findings from VA audiological evaluations, including the pure tone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz, and whether the Veteran’s speech recognition test were measured using the Maryland CNC test (audiometrics/audiograms) from the test that occurred on February 14, 2017. [Note: it may be necessary to contact the VA medical facility directly to obtain copies of the test results]. 2. Request from SSA complete copies of any determination on a claim for disability benefits from that agency as well as the records, including medical records, considered in adjudicating the claim. All actions to obtain the records should be documented. Any negative search results should be noted in the record and communicated to the Veteran pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). (Continued on the next page)   3. Ensure the development outlined above has been accomplished, and then arrange for any additional development indicated. Then readjudicate the claims on appeal. If the benefit sought remains denied, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and provide the Veteran and his representative the requisite period of time to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. MICHAEL A. PAPPAS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Joseph R. Keselyak