Citation Nr: 18158031
Decision Date: 12/14/18	Archive Date: 12/14/18

DOCKET NO. 16-44 599
DATE:	December 14, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from November 2000 to December 2003.  He also had a period of service with the Army National Guard.  This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision.  
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.
The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on this issue at the current time.  The Veteran’s noise exposure has been conceeded by VA by the nature of his military occupational speciality as a combat engineer and with the award of service connection for tinnitus.  On VA examination in July 2015, a hearing loss disability as defined by 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 was not present.  In a June 2016 VA addendum opinion, the eaminer noted that although the Veteran may not meet VA criteria, three audiologists had reviewed the audiogram and all agreed that the Veteran had high frequency sensorineural hearing, which was most usually first affected by noise exposure.  The examiner further opined that hearing loss in 6000 Hertz and 8000 Hertz in right ear ear and 8000 Hetz in the left ear was likely the result of military weapons and explosives.
If there is current ratable hearing loss disability, then service connection is possible. The Veteran last underwent VA examination to assess whether he had a bilateral hearing loss disability in July 2015, over three years ago.  In the June 2018 Appellant’s Brief, the Veteran contends that the claimed condition has worsened in severity since that time. VA must provide a new examination when the available evidence is too old to adequately evaluate the current state of the condition.  See Olson v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 480, 482 (1992) (citing Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 629, 632 (1992)).  Therefore, as the Veteran was last afforded a VA examination in  2015 and he contends his hearing loss has worsened in severity, the Veteran should be provided another VA examination to ascertain whether he currently has a bilateral hearing loss disability.  See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994).  
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1.  Schedule the Veteran for the appropriate VA examination to determine whether the Veteran currently has bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes.  Any indicated diagnostic tests and studies must be accomplished.  All pertinent symptomatology and findings necessary to rate this disorder and to determine whether the Veteran has current bilateral hearing loss disability for VA compensation purposes must be reported in detail.  




2.  If upon completion of the above action, the claim remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures.  


 
E. I. VELEZ
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	K. L. Wallin, Counsel