Citation Nr: 20006744 Decision Date: 01/28/20 Archive Date: 01/27/20 DOCKET NO. 17-02 469 DATE: January 28, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1963 to December 1964. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2016 rating decision. In October 2019, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Acting Veterans Law Judge at a video-conference hearing. A transcript of that hearing is of record. Unfortunately, the Veteran’s claim for an increased rating must be remanded for further development. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim, so he is afforded every possible consideration Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for hearing loss is remanded. The Board finds that a new VA examination is warranted to assess the current nature and severity of the Veteran’s service-connected hearing loss. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.327(a) (providing that reexaminations will be requested whenever VA needs to determine the current severity of a disability). The Veteran was last afforded a VA Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Disability Benefits Questionnaire in February 2017. The examination report describes the functional impact of the Veteran’s hearing loss as difficulty with understanding speech when background noise is present and when there are multiple speakers. During the October 2019 video-conference hearing, the Veteran advised that his hearing loss had worsened since the February 2017 examination. Specifically, the Veteran stated that he has difficulty understanding speech in a low pitch, when background noise is present, and that he isolates himself because of these issues. Id. The Veteran also indicated that his service-connected tinnitus makes hearing more difficult. Id. Considering that the Veteran’s last examination occurred almost three years ago and the evidence that his disability picture has changed, the Board finds that the current evidence of record does not appear to adequately reveal the present state of the Veteran’s service-connected hearing loss. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 595 (1991) (where the record does not adequately reveal the current state of the claimant’s disability, a VA examination must be conducted); see also Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1994) (wherein the Court determined the Board should have ordered a contemporaneous examination of the Veteran because a 23-month old exam was too remote in time to adequately support the decision in an appeal for an increased rating); Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181-82 (2007), citing Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505-06 (1998) (“Where the record does not adequately reveal the current state of the claimant’s disability…the fulfillment of the statutory duty to assist requires a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination.”); see also Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s outstanding VA treatment records, to include for the period from April 2017 to the present. 2. After the above development is completed, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected hearing loss. (a.) 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. (b.) To the extent possible, the examiner should discuss the effect of the Veteran’s hearing loss on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. All examination findings, along with the complete rationale for all opinions expressed, must be set forth in the examination report. A. J. Spector Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Sean Mussey, 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.