Citation Nr: 20004044 Decision Date: 01/16/20 Archive Date: 01/16/20 DOCKET NO. 14-43 230 DATE: January 16, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from August 1954 until his honorable discharge in July 1958. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2013 rating decision by the Wichita, Kansas Regional Office (RO) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In August 2018, the Board remanded the case to the RO for further development. Specifically, the Board directed the RO to provide the Veteran with a VA examination to opine on the etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. As will be discussed below, the Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s previous remand directives regarding the issues of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. Another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. An August 2018 Board remand instructed the RO to afford the Veteran a VA audiological evaluation to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. However, such a VA audiological evaluation has not been provided. The Board notes that there appears to be an attempt to contact the Veteran to schedule his VA examination. However, it does not appear that contact was ever made nor does the record reflect how the attempted contact was made. The record indicates that in a March 2019 letter, the Veteran was directed to expect a telephone call or a letter to schedule a VA examination. However, there is no record of a letter sent and the only record contains a note that the VA examiner was unable to contact the Veteran. On remand, an audiological evaluation should be scheduled to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The RO should properly document all efforts to schedule the VA audiological evaluation for the Veteran. On remand, the Veteran should be asked to furnish, or to furnish an authorization to enable VA to obtain, any additional private treatment records from providers who treated him for his claimed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be given an opportunity to identify any outstanding private or VA treatment records relevant to the claims on appeal. After obtaining any necessary authorization from the Veteran, all outstanding records should be obtained. For private treatment records, make at least two (2) attempts to obtain records from any identified sources. If any such records are unavailable, inform the Veteran and afford him an opportunity to submit any copies in his possession. For federal records, all reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. The Veteran should be afforded a VA examination with a different VA examiner (i.e, other than the March 2013 VA examiner) to provide a medical opinion on the etiology of bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent greater probability) that the Veteran’s (a) bilateral hearing loss disability and (b) tinnitus was caused by in-service acoustic trauma. The examiner should provide a rationale for any opinions provided. The examiner should accept as established fact the Veteran’s reports of in-service acoustic trauma, particularly his reports that he worked on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. The examiner should not infer the absence of symptoms from the absence of treatment or other corroboration. For instance, the mere passage of time is insufficient for the sole basis for a negative opinion. 3. When scheduling the aforementioned VA examination, notify the Veteran that it is his responsibility to report for the examination and to cooperate in the development of the claim. The consequences for failure to report for any VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claims. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655. A copy of the notification letter advising him of the time, date, and location of the scheduled examination(s) must be included in the claims folder and must reflect that it was sent to his last known address of record. If he fails to report to the examination(s), the record must indicate whether the notification letter was returned as undeliverable. KRISTY L. ZADORA Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Deemer 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.