Citation Nr: 21004498 Decision Date: 01/27/21 Archive Date: 01/27/21 DOCKET NO. 16-15 497A DATE: January 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for service-connected bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1985 to August 1988. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision which granted service connection for the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. During the current appeal, and specifically in October 2019, the Veteran appeared and provided testimony before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. The Veteran seeks an initial compensable rating for his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. In March 2020, the Board remanded this issue to obtain a new VA audiological examination, as the results of the November 2016 VA examination were not valid for rating purposes. Unfortunately, the Board finds that the VA audiological examination conducted in September 2020, pursuant to the March 2020 remand, is also not adequate for rating purposes. The Board sincerely regrets the additional delay caused by this remand but finds that a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a VA audiological examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. Significantly, the September 2020 VA audiologist noted that the puretone threshold test results were not valid for rating purposes. The audiologist explained that there were significant discrepancies between the Veteran’s speech reception thresholds and his puretone averages. The examiner also noted that the use of speech discrimination scores was not appropriate for the Veteran. Thus, the September 2020 VA examination is inadequate, and a remand is necessary to provide the Veteran with an additional VA audiological examination. In this regard, the Board hereby notifies the Veteran that, while VA has a statutory duty to assist a veteran in developing evidence pertinent to a claim, he also has a duty to assist and cooperate with the VA in developing evidence. In other words, VA’s duty to assist is not a one-way street. If a veteran wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may, or should, have information that is essential in obtaining the relevant evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991); Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 60, 68 (1993). VA’s duty must be understood as a duty to assist a veteran in developing his claim, rather than a duty on the part of VA to develop the entire claim with the veteran performing only a passive role. Turk v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 565, 568 (2008). As such, the Veteran must make reasonable efforts to assist VA in determining the severity of his bilateral hearing loss on VA examination. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The examiner should review the entire claims file and conduct all necessary tests. If valid audiometric results cannot be obtained, the examiner should indicate whether such is due to some circumstance unique to the Veteran that renders him incapable of providing valid responses (in which case it should be determined whether there are any possible accommodations that would address the problem) or whether it is due to his failure to cooperate. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history and that such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If his reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. A clear rationale for all requested opinions shall be provided. A discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation stating why. No action is required of the Veteran until he is notified by VA. However, he is advised of his obligation to cooperate in ensuring the duty to assist is satisfied. Kowalski v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 171 (2005). The Veteran is also advised that he has the right to submit additional evidence and argument with respect to this matter. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This appeal must be afforded prompt treatment. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Benson, 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.