Citation Nr: 21003247 Decision Date: 01/21/21 Archive Date: 01/21/21 DOCKET NO. 17-30 271 DATE: January 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from September 1963 to July 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a December 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that, at a September 2020 Board hearing for a separate matter, the Veteran and his representative waived his hearing request for this matter. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. Other than the waiver of his hearing request, the Veteran’s appeal as to an increased rating for his bilateral hearing loss was not addressed in any way at the September 2020 Board hearing. Regrettably, the Board finds that additional development is necessary before this matter can be adjudicated. The Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss is currently rated as 10 percent disabling under DC 6100, effective July 30, 1996. 38 U.S.C. §§ 4.85, 4.86. The Veteran contends that his symptoms are productive of a higher disability rating. The Veteran was provided a VA examination for hearing loss in December 2015. In his October 2016 notice of disagreement, the Veteran alleged that the examination was inadequate and requested a new examination. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 31 (once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a claim for service connection, even if not statutorily obligated to do so, it must provide an adequate one). The Board notes that, regardless of any claimed deficiencies in the examination, the audiological testing results from the December 2015 were extremely close to meeting the criteria for an increased disability rating for the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. In November 2018, the Veteran obtained a private audiological examination. The examination suggests that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss has significantly worsened. Unfortunately, the examiner did not provide his testing results in a format that is compatible with the VA rating criteria for the evaluation of hearing impairment. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 4.85, 4.86. As the November 2018 private audiological evaluation indicates that the Veteran’s condition has significantly worsened, the Veteran should be afforded a new VA examination to assess the current extent and severity of his bilateral hearing loss. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's updated VA treatment records and associate them with the evidence of record. The request for records should include a search for any audiological testing. If possible, the Veteran himself should submit these records (if any), and any other new treatment for this problem, himself, to expedite the case. Any assistance on this issue would be appreciated. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. 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. If the requested opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge, i.e., no one could respond given medical science and the known facts, or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner, i.e., additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training. (Continued on the next page)   3. After completion of the aforementioned, the AOJ should readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, then the AOJ should provide the Veteran with a supplemental statement of the case and afford him the appropriate opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case must be returned to the Board for further appellate review. John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. VanValkenburg, 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.