Citation Nr: 20022590
Decision Date: 04/01/20	Archive Date: 04/01/20

DOCKET NO. 14-00 473
DATE: April 1, 2020

REMANDED

Entitlement to higher initial ratings for bilateral hearing loss, currently rated as 10 percent disabling prior to July 18, 2019, and as 40 percent disabling from that date, is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran had active service from September 30, 1962, to October 9, 1962, and additional service in the Army National Guard and as a reserve of the Army from September 1973 to July 1986.

In November 2016, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record.

The Board remanded this case in February 2017.  The Board regrets the additional delay in adjudicating this case; however, a further remand is required for the below two reasons.

First, VA treatment notes dated in November 2013, December 2016, and August 2019 reference audiograms obtained at those visits.  The November 2013 and August 2019 notes state that the audiograms are available “under the Tools menu”.  However, the audiograms are not currently of record.  A remand is required to obtain those three audiograms and any other that may be part of the Veteran’s VA treatment records but are not currently of record.

Second, the Veteran has submitted a private audiogram that is dated in March 2017 and is signed by “K. Smith”.  The audiogram includes only a graphical representation of the testing results, does not specify what type of word discrimination test was administered, and does not specify K. Smith’s qualifications for administering audiological examinations.  For audiological testing results to be adequate for rating purposes, testing must be conducted by a state-licensed audiologist and must include a controlled speech discrimination test using the Maryland CNC test and a puretone audiometry test.  See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a).  A remand is required so that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) may seek clarification of the private audiogram to determine whether it is adequate for ratings purposes under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85.  See Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 259 (2010).

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Associate with the record copies of the audiograms obtained at VA medical facilities in November 2013, December 2016, August 2019, and any other time during the relevant rating period.  The audiograms may be separately stored in CPRS.  If any such records referenced in the Veteran’s VA treatment records cannot be obtained because they do not exist or further efforts to obtain them would be futile, then the Veteran should be notified of such in a manner consistent with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e).

2. After obtaining an appropriate authorization of release of information from the Veteran, contact the Veteran’s private treatment provider regarding the March 2017 private audiology testing.  The treatment provider must be asked to translate the graphs of the Veteran’s auditory thresholds in the frequencies from 500 Hertz to 4000 Hertz to the appropriate decibels and report them in numerical form, rather than graphical form, as well as to provide clarification regarding what type of speech discrimination testing was administered and whether the testing was conducted by a state-licensed audiologist.

 

 

MICHAEL MARTIN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	T. J. Anthony, 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.