Citation Nr: 19190874 Decision Date: 12/03/19 Archive Date: 12/03/19 DOCKET NO. 14-34 274A DATE: December 3, 2019 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2018). The Veteran had active military service from October 1969 to October 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from the February 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Veteran appeared at a November 2016 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. The Veteran contends that his service connected bilateral hearing loss warrants a compensable rating. This matter was previously before the Board in April 2018 and was remanded for further development. Specifically, the Board remanded this matter to obtain outstanding treatment records and to offer the Veteran the opportunity to undergo a VA examination. Subsequently, in September 2019, the Veteran’s outstanding VA treatment records were associated with the Veteran’s claims file. Additionally, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in September 2019. However, at the Veteran’s September 2019 examination, the examiner stated that the Veteran refused testing due to a phobia of having his ears being touched. The Veteran stated that he expected to be tested in a sound booth without anything being put into his ears. Additionally, the Veteran specifically had his ears cleaned under valium sedation prior to his VA examination to avoid any issues and was told ahead of time that nothing would be inserted into his ears. The Board notes that the instructions listed at the beginning of the VA examination note that the examination must include a controlled speech discrimination test and a puretone audiometry test completed in a sound isolated booth. Additionally, the Board notes that the Veteran’s VA treatment notes reference the Veteran’s ear phobia and that he was able to complete a VA audio examination in July 2014, indicating that it is possible to conduct the puretone audiometry and speech discrimination testing without inserting objects into the Veteran’s ears. Thereby, the Board finds that a remand is warranted for the Veteran to be afforded the opportunity to undergo a VA examination in which, if possible, accommodations are made for the Veteran’s phobia of having anything inserted into his ears. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of his service connected bilateral hearing loss. The examiner must make all possible and feasible attempts to accommodate the Veteran’s phobia of having anything inserted into his ears. The examination should include all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner. The examiner should report all manifestations related to the service connected disability. All opinions provided must be thoroughly explained and an adequate rationale for any conclusions reached must be provided. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the medical professional should state and explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. If accommodations cannot be made for the Veteran’s phobia, it must be explained why they could not be made. 2. Following completion of the above, and a review of any additional evidence received, the RO should also undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion which considers any newly received evidence. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Mountford, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.