Citation Nr: 18123743
Decision Date: 08/02/18	Archive Date: 08/02/18

DOCKET NO. 15-29 565
DATE:	August 2, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to a higher initial rating in excess of zero percent (noncompensable) for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from February 1966 to February 1968.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO).
In a June 2015 statement, the Veteran asserted that his service-connected bilateral hearing loss disability had increased in severity since the Veteran was last examined by VA.  The Veteran should be provided an opportunity to report for a VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his bilateral hearing loss disability.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Obtain the Veteran’s updated VA treatment records and any private medical records identified by the Veteran as pertinent to his claim.
2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss.  The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria.  The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups.  To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to bilateral hearing loss alone and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living.  If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement, or an opinion regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training).
 
DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD
Acting Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	T.M. Gillett, Counsel