Citation Nr: 21062874
Decision Date: 10/12/21	Archive Date: 10/12/21

DOCKET NO. 16-43 446
DATE: October 12, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to an initial compensable disability evaluation from November 27, 2015, to May 22, 2017, and to a disability evaluation in excess of 20 percent from May 23, 2017, forward, for service-connected bilateral hearing loss is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from July 1966 to June 1968.

This matter again comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

The Board previously remanded this matter in December 2018.

As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that the RO granted entitlement to a 20 percent disability evaluation for the Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss effective May 23, 2017. Because this benefit is directly related to the issue on appeal, the Board now categorizes the issue as entitlement to an initial compensable disability evaluation from November 27, 2015, to May 22, 2017, and to a disability evaluation in excess of 20 percent from May 23, 2017, forward, for bilateral hearing loss.

In November 2015, when the Veteran first submitted his claim for hearing loss, he submitted an evaluation conducted by his private provider. This evaluation did not measure puretone thresholds at 3000 Hertz (Hz) or clarify as to which speech discrimination test was used. VA regulation provides that an examination for hearing impairment must include a "controlled speech discrimination test" using the Maryland CNC Word List and a puretone audiometry test. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a). As such, the Board requests that clarification be obtained on remand as to which speech discrimination test was used by the Veteran's private provider at the time of examination.

The Board also finds that the Veteran's submission of a private examination indicates that he has primarily seen this private provider for his hearing loss. No other examinations or records from the Veteran's private provider regarding hearing loss have been obtained as associated with the file. As these records could evidence entitlement to a compensable disability evaluation prior to May 2017 and/or entitlement to a higher compensable disability evaluation from May 2017 forward, the Board finds that the RO should obtain and associate with the claims file the Veteran's private records and then readjudicate the issue on appeal.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. The RO should request the Veteran to identify any and all private medical records regarding his bilateral hearing loss, including from November 2015 to the present. Appropriate efforts must be made to obtain these records if he has adequately identified them and authorized their release. He should also be invited to submit these records himself.

All actions to obtain the requested records must be documented in the claims file. If they cannot be located or no such records exist, the Veteran and his representative should be so notified in writing.

2. The RO should also request clarification from Graves-Gilbert Clinic, the private facility that conducted the November 2015 audiological examination submitted by the Veteran, as to which speech discrimination test was used during the November 2015 examination.

3. Then, the RO should readjudicate the issue of entitlement to an initial compensable disability evaluation prior to May 23, 2017, and to a disability in excess of 20 percent thereafter, for service-connected bilateral hearing loss.

4. If the above-sought benefit remains denied, the RO should issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) to the Veteran and his representative. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response before returning the appeal to the Board.

 

 

DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	S. Hoffman

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.