Citation Nr: 18154287 Decision Date: 11/30/18 Archive Date: 11/29/18 DOCKET NO. 10-45 263 DATE: November 30, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for vertigo is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for perforation of the tympanic membrane of the left ear is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to April 8, 2014 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1968 to June 1970. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2009 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) located in North Little Rock, Arkansas. The Veteran testified before a now-retired Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a Board hearing in August 2012. A transcript of the hearing has been reviewed and associated with the claims file. This matter was before the Board in July 2014 at which time it was remanded for additional evidentiary development. As detailed below, additional remand is unfortunately required. In correspondence dated in September 2018, the appellant was notified that the VLJ who conducted the August 2012 hearing had retired and was provided the opportunity to testify at another hearing. The Veteran did not respond to the letter. In accordance with the terms of the letter, the Board will presume that the Veteran does not want another hearing and will proceed with a decision on the claims on appeal. 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Pursuant to the Board’s July 2014 remand instructions, the RO was asked to obtain outstanding VA audiological treatment records, to specifically include copies of the results of the VA audiograms performed in July 2009, December 2010, and January 2011. An additional VA examination was also to be provided. Following the requested development, the RO was to readjudicate the claim. If the benefit sought on appeal remained denied, the Veteran was to be provided a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). The Board observes that outstanding VA records were obtained. While the clinical record indeed show that audiograms were conducted in July 2009, December 2010, January 2011, February 2011, and December 2016, the audiogram results were not provided as requested. Additionally, the Board observes that the Veteran was provided VA audiological examinations in October 2014, November 2016, and September 2017. However, the hearing loss claim was not readjudicated following the additional development as instructed in the Board’s remand. In light of the foregoing, remand for full compliance with the Board’s prior remand is warranted. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 270-71 (1998). 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for vertigo is remanded. Pursuant to the Board’s July 2014 remand directives, the Veteran was to be provided an additional VA examination to determine the impact of his service-connected vertigo on his ordinary activity, including employment. Following the requested development, the RO was to readjudicate the claim. If the benefit sought on appeal remained denied, the Veteran was to be provided a SSOC. The Veteran was provided VA examinations in October 2014, September 2016, December 2017, and February 2018. However, the vertigo claim was not readjudicated following the additional development as instructed in the Board’s remand. In light of the foregoing, remand for full compliance with the Board’s prior remand is warranted. Stegall, supra. 3. Entitlement to a compensable rating for perforation of the tympanic membrane of the left ear is remanded. Pursuant to the Board’s July 2014 remand directives, the Veteran was to be provided an additional VA examination to determine the impact of his service-connected perforation of the tympanic membrane of the left ear on his ordinary activity, including employment. Following the requested development, the RO was to readjudicate the claim. If the benefit sought on appeal remained denied, the Veteran was to be provided a SSOC. The Veteran was provided VA examinations in October 2014, September 2016, December 2017, and February 2018. However, the perforation of the tympanic membrane of the left ear claim was not readjudicate following the additional development as directed in the Board’s remand. Stegall, supra. Thus, additional remand is required. 4. Entitlement to TDIU prior to April 8, 2014 is remanded. As resolution of the claims remanded herein may have an impact on the issue of entitlement to a TDIU prior to April 8, 2014, these issues are inextricably intertwined. Harris v. Derwinski,1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (holding that where a decision on one issue would have a “significant impact” upon another, and that impact in turn could render any appellate review meaningless and a waste of judicial resources, the two claims are inextricably intertwined). Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran’s TDIU claim should be held in abeyance, pending the development and readjudication of the other claims on appeal. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file any outstanding VA audiological treatment records and audiogram results, to specifically, include copies of VA audiometric test results performed in July 2009, December 2010, January 2011, February 2011, and December 2016. 2. After undertaking any development deemed necessary, readjudicate the issues on appeal, considering all the evidence of record. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, provide the Veteran with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and the opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review. K. Conner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Jones, Counsel