Citation Nr: 18153432 Decision Date: 11/28/18 Archive Date: 11/27/18 DOCKET NO. 10-44 279 DATE: November 28, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to increases in the (10 percent prior to April 3, 2013, and 60 percent from that date) staged ratings assigned for bilateral hearing loss, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from November 1964 to November 1968. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2009 rating decision which continued a 10 percent rating for bilateral hearing loss. In December 2011 a videoconference hearing was held before the undersigned; a transcript is in the record. A February 2014 rating decision increased the rating to 40 percent effective February 3, 2014. A July 2014 rating decision increased the rating to 60 percent effective April 3, 2013 (effectively replacing the 40 percent rating assigned in a February 2014 rating decision). Entitlement to increases in the (10 percent prior to April 3, 2013, and 60 percent from that date) staged ratings assigned for bilateral hearing loss. The Board is aware that this matter has been pending for years (and that the matter has been advanced on the Board’s docket). Nevertheless, considering the deficiencies in the record noted and the argument presented by the Veteran’s representative, the Board finds that a remand for further development is necessary. In a March 2017 VHA opinion, the consulting expert noted February 2008 VA audiometry that may support a higher rating for the a period prior to April 3, 2013. However, a review of the Veteran’s claims file found that that the report of such audiometry has not been associated with the record. In a March 2017 statement, the Veteran reported February 2016 audiometry by Wilmington Hearing Specialists at the request of the Wilmington VAMC. The report of that audiometry has also not been associated with the record. Furthermore, the record contains records of the Veteran’s VA treatment for hearing loss only up to March 2012; as it reflects that he continues to receive VA treatment for the disability, and records of such treatment are pertinent evidence, outstanding records of the treatment must be obtained and considered. Notably, VA records are constructively of record. The Veteran was last afforded a VA examination to assess his bilateral hearing loss disability in June 2016. In a September 2018 statement, his representative stated that his hearing acuity had worsened since he was last examined. Considering the length of the intervening period since the last examination and the allegation of worsening, a contemporaneous examination to assess the disability is necessary. The matter is REMANDED for the following: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify all providers of evaluations or treatment he received for hearing loss disability, and to provide authorizations for VA to obtain updated, to the present, records of any such private evaluations or treatment (to include the reported February 2016 audiometry by Wilmington Hearing Specialists). Secure for the record complete clinical records (any not already associated with the record) of the evaluations and treatment from all providers identified. If any private records identified are not received pursuant to the request, the Veteran should be so notified and advised that ultimately it is his responsibility to ensure that private records are received. 2. Secure for the record complete, updated (to the present), records of all VA evaluations and treatment the Veteran has received for hearing loss since March 2012, to specifically include reports of February 2008, April 2012, and June 2013 audiometry at Fayetteville VAMC. Then arrange for a VA audiological examination of the Veteran (with audiometric studies) to ascertain the current severity of his bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran’s record must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. In addition to reporting audiometry findings, the examiner should elicit from the Veteran an account of the impact his hearing loss has on daily activity functioning, and should comment regarding whether the account is consistent with the findings on audiometry, as well as on the impact the level of hearing impairment shown by audiometry would be expected to have on occupational functioning. The examiner must include rationale with all opinions. GEORGE R. SENYK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Bayles, Associate Counsel