Citation Nr: 20007541 Decision Date: 01/30/20 Archive Date: 01/29/20 DOCKET NO. 16-55 840 DATE: January 30, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 20 percent disabling for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for restrictive lung disease with asbestosis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1961 to August 1965. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran failed to report for a requested hearing scheduled for August 14, 2019 and did not provide good cause for such failure to report. 1. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 20 percent disabling for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Regarding the claim for an increased rating for hearing loss, the Veteran was last provided an examination addressing the severity of his service-connected hearing loss in July 2015. Given that his representative in his January 2019 brief has alleged that his service-connected hearing loss has worsened and requested a new VA examination, and in light of the amount of time since his last examination for this disability and the possible increase in severity since last examination, reexamination is needed to fully and fairly evaluate the condition on appeal. See 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 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994) (wherein the Court determined the Board should have ordered a contemporaneous examination of the Veteran because a 23-month old examination was too remote in time to adequately support the decision in an appeal for an increased rating); VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995). Additionally, the most recent VA treatment records of record are dated from November 2016 and an effort should be made to obtain these, and any other records that may be pertinent to this matter. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for restrictive lung disease with asbestosis is remanded. Regarding the claim for an increased rating for a restrictive lung disease with asbestosis, the Veteran was last provided an examination addressing the severity of his service-connected restrictive lung disease with asbestosis in July 2015. Given that his representative in his January 2019 brief has alleged that his service-connected restrictive lung disease with asbestosis has worsened and requested a new VA examination, and in light of the amount of time since his last examination for this disability and the possible increase in severity since last examination, reexamination is needed to fully and fairly evaluate the condition on appeal. See 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 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994) (wherein the Court determined the Board should have ordered a contemporaneous examination of the Veteran because a 23-month old examination was too remote in time to adequately support the decision in an appeal for an increased rating); VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995). Additionally, the most recent VA treatment records of record are dated from November 2016 and an effort should be made to obtain these, and any other records that may be pertinent to this matter. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. All pertinent treatment records not yet obtained, including VA treatment records since November 2016 and any other sources indicated should be obtained and associated with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The claims file, including this remand must be reviewed by the examiner and such review should be noted in the examination report. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings then reported in detail. The examiner must fully describe any functional effects associated with the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and the impact of his hearing disability upon his vocational pursuits. The examiner should also indicate the occupational effects of the hearing loss, if any. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed must be included in the examination report. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the examiner must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected restrictive lung disease with asbestosis. The claims file, including this remand must be reviewed by the examiner and such review should be noted in the examination report. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings then reported in detail. The examiner must fully describe any functional effects associated with the Veteran’s asbestosis. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed must be included in the examination report. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the examiner must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Carol Eckart 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.