Citation Nr: 21004406 Decision Date: 01/27/21 Archive Date: 01/27/21 DOCKET NO. 16-19 417A DATE: January 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1953 to January 1955. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a May 2015 rating decision that, in pertinent part, granted service connection for right ear hearing loss and assessed a noncompensable rating. A decision on entitlement to compensation for left ear hearing loss was deferred. An April 2016 rating decision granted an increased evaluation of 10 percent for hearing loss. In May 2018 and May 2020, the Board remanded for further development. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for hearing loss is remanded. Following the May 2018 Board remand, the Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination at a facility approximately 100 miles from his address. The Veteran requested an examination closer to his address because he is elderly and unable to drive long distances. An examination was not scheduled closer to the Veteran’s address. The Board’s May 2020 remand stated that the Veteran’s request to have the examination scheduled at a location closer to his address should be facilitated. Following remand, the Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination at the same facility. The Veteran did not report to the examination. The Veteran’s representative contends that remand is required because the agency of jurisdiction (AOJ) failed to comply with the May 2020 remand by not scheduling the VA examination at a location closer to his address. As a preliminary matter, the Veteran’s representative indicates that all phone numbers of record for the Veteran are not in service. Because remand is necessary in this case, the AOJ should determine whether the phone numbers of record for the Veteran are in service and, if not, take appropriate steps to obtain a phone number in service. The Board finds that remand is required for the AOJ to determine whether a VA examination can be scheduled at a location closer to the Veteran’s address. The Board notes that the AOJ is using the C&P Examination Request Routing Assistant to identify the facility closest to the Veteran’s address, which on both occasions identified the same facility about 100 miles from the Veteran’s address. The Board, however, notes that the Veteran has visited the Mount Vernon VA Clinic for a January 2015 audiogram and for hearing aid problems. The Board also notes that an April 2018 brief indicated that the Veteran received private treatment for his hearing loss, and the claims file contains a 2010 audiogram from Bellingham Ear, Nose & Throat. The Board notes that the VA clinic and the private medical provider are closer to the Veteran’s address than the facility identified by the AOJ. On remand, the AOJ should determine whether a location closer to the Veteran’s address, to include the Mount Vernon VA Clinic and any private medical providers, can provide a VA examination that satisfies all regulatory requirements and, if so, coordinate with the Veteran to ensure that he is able to get to that location. The AOJ should also consider whether there are other potential options to ensure that the Veteran can attend the VA examination. The AOJ should document all efforts and include a memo in the claims file of all such efforts if it is unable to provide the Veteran with a VA examination. The Board notes that, in February 2019, the AOJ previously requested the Veteran to identify any private treatment for hearing loss. No response was received. However, due to the unique circumstances in this case, the AOJ should ask the Veteran to identify any private treatment for hearing loss, to include Bellingham Ear, Nose & Throat. The AOJ should also obtain the detailed findings of the January 2015 audiogram that was performed at the Mount Vernon VA Clinic and associate with the claims file. The VA treatment record indicates that the detailed findings can be found in CPRS Tools or remotely through ROES audiogram search. The Board notes that it does not have access to these systems. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The AOJ should determine whether the phone numbers of record for the Veteran are in service and, if not, take the appropriate steps to obtain a phone number in service. 2. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 to identify any private medical provider for hearing loss, to include Bellingham Ear, Nose & Throat. Make two requests for the authorized records from each provider, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 3. Obtain the detailed findings from the January 2015 audiogram that can be found in CPRS Tools or remotely through ROES audiogram search and associate with the claims file. The AOJ should verify the audiogram was administered by a state-licensed audiologist and used the Maryland CNC test. 4. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from September 2018 to the present. If these VA treatment records identify any additional audiograms, ensure that the claims file contains the detailed findings and associate with the claims file. (Continued on the next page.)   5. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected hearing loss. The AOJ should determine whether a location closer to the Veteran’s address than found in the C&P Examination Request Routing Assistant, to include the Mount Vernon VA Clinic and any private medical providers, can provide a VA examination that satisfies all regulatory requirements and, if so, coordinate with the Veteran to ensure that he is able to get to that location. The AOJ should also consider whether there are other potential options to ensure that the Veteran can attend the VA examination. The AOJ should document all efforts and include a memo in the claims file of all such efforts if it is unable to provide the Veteran with a VA examination. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Craig Ormson, 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.