Citation Nr: 21063162
Decision Date: 10/13/21	Archive Date: 10/13/21

DOCKET NO. 17-62 668
DATE: October 13, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Army from August 1964 to December 1964.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In November 2018, the Veteran presented testimony before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ); a transcript of the hearing is of record. The VLJ is no longer with the Board, however, the Veteran was given an opportunity to request a new hearing before another VLJ and declined to do so. See BVA Letter, received April 2021.

This matter was previously remanded in February 2019 and June 2021 for additional development. The matter has since been returned to the Board for appellate review.

Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.

.

Current review of the record reveals that that the September 2018 private audiology examination data may support the claim for an increased rating if it were determined that the report met certain requirements for rating purposes. Therefore, the Board finds that a remand for development of clarification regarding pertinent details of the September 2018 private audiology examination report is warranted in this case. Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 259, 269 (2010) (holding that the Board has a duty to clarify whether private audiological examinations used the Maryland CNC test).

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

With any needed authorization from the Veteran, contact AccuHear in order to request clarification regarding whether or not Maryland CNC was used during the Veteran's September 2018 private audiological examination.

Documentation of the attempt to obtain this information must be associated with the claimed file.

 

 

Nathaniel Doan

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	E. Fairlie, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.