Citation Nr: 18155428
Decision Date: 12/04/18	Archive Date: 12/04/18

DOCKET NO. 17-29 223
DATE:	December 4, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from March 1951 to March 1955 and from November 1955 to October 1957.
This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2017 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office.
In October 2018, the Veteran asked that he be allowed to remotely “join” (from the Vet Center in Knoxville, Tennessee) a Board videoconference hearing that had been scheduled in Nashville for November 2018 because he was unable to travel.  Later that month, the agency of original jurisdiction notified him that if he failed to report for the Nashville hearing, his request for hearing would be considered withdrawn.  Thereafter, he did not report for the hearing.  If his ability to travel changes, he may renew his request for a hearing while this case is in remand status, if he so desires.
Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral hearing loss.
The Veteran asserts that his most recent VA audiology examination in February 2017 was inadequate.  He says that the examiner rushed the examination and hardly spoke to him.
In Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447 (2007), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that in addition to providing objective test results, a VA audiologist must fully describe the functional effects caused by a hearing disability in his or her final report.
In the present case, with respect to the question, “Does the Veteran’s hearing loss impact ordinary conditions of daily life, including ability to work,” the examiner replied “no,” without further explanation.  In the Board’s view, that statement, standing alone, in insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Martinak.  A new examination is warranted.
Updated records of any relevant VA treatment should also be procured.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c).  See also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992) (holding that VA is charged with constructive notice of medical evidence in its possession).
This matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1.  Obtain copies of records pertaining to any relevant VA treatment the Veteran has received since the time that such records were last procured, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159.  The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record.
2.  After the foregoing development has been completed to the extent possible, arrange to have the Veteran scheduled for a VA audiology examination.  If feasible, the examination should be conducted by an examiner other than the examiner who previously evaluated the Veteran in February 2017.
The examiner should review the record.  All indicated tests should be conducted, to specifically include puretone audiometry and Maryland CNC speech discrimination testing, and the results reported.  As part of the final report, the examiner must fully describe the functional effects caused by the Veteran’s hearing disability.
A complete medical rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided.
3.  After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the Veteran’s claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence.  If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case.  An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response.
 
DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	J. Nichols, Counsel