Citation Nr: 21061494 Decision Date: 10/04/21 Archive Date: 10/04/21 DOCKET NO. 17-21 581 DATE: October 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a higher rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1972 to January 1975. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2019 the Board remanded the matter for a new VA examination to assess the current severity of the Veteran's hearing loss. The Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, but additional remand is necessary in order for VA to comply with its duty to assist the Veteran in obtaining treatment records from a private Hearing Center. In November 2015, VA received a correspondence from the Veteran identifying two clinicians and the address of a Hearing Center which he said VA had sent him to in order to receive hearing tests and be fitted for hearing aids. Though the claims file does contain one evaluation from the Hearing Center that was sent in by the Veteran, the record does not reflect that VA ever undertook attempts to assist the Veteran in obtaining the complete records from the Hearing Center. Following the most recent supplemental statement of the case, the Veteran submitted an October 2020 statement contesting whether his records from the Hearing Center had been considered and stating that he has had 9 tests to date, some of them at the Hearing Center. Given that the Veteran has provided information identifying outstanding private treatment records that he believes are relevant to and should be considered in adjudicating the present increased-rating claim, VA has a duty to assist the Veteran in obtaining those records. Consequently, remand is required to discharge this duty. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). As a final remark, following the Board's prior November 2019 decision a new audiological examination was scheduled, as directed, in order to evaluate the current severity of the Veteran's hearing loss. The record reflects that the examination was canceled, however, because the Veteran failed to appear. The Board understands the Veteran's request that any evaluations from the private Hearing Center should be considered in assigning his rating. For an evaluation to be sufficient for assigning a disability rating, however, the law requires that the examination include a controlled speech discrimination test that uses the Maryland CNC list. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a). While the Board cannot speak to any other Hearing Center evaluations that may be outstanding, the October 6, 2015 audiometric examination from the Hearing Center that was submitted by the Veteran shows that speech discrimination testing was performed with the W-22 word list, not the Maryland CNC list. Consequently, this examination ultimately may not be sufficient for consideration in assigning an evaluation. Id. The Veteran states in his October 2020 statement that he "believe[s] [his] rating levels are incorrect" and asks for an increased rating reflective of his "true rating[] of disability." If the Veteran desires that there be a more current evaluation for his present increased-rating claim, regulation requires that there be an audiological examination with puretone audiometry as well as speech discrimination testing using the Maryland CNC list. Id. At this time, the Board will respect the Veteran's request in his October 2020 statement for "please no more tests." If the Veteran changes his mind and would like to be provided with an updated audiometric examination, he should contact the RO and apprise them of the circumstances. The Board sympathizes with the Veteran's desire for a final conclusion at this time. The Board, however, is bound to apply the law, which in this case requires remand in order for the RO to assist the Veteran in obtaining any and all outstanding records from the Hearing Center. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED for the following action: Take appropriate action to assist the Veteran in obtaining records from the Hearing Center identified by the Veteran in statements dated November 28, 2015, and October 26, 2020. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Davis, 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.