Citation Nr: 21064042 Decision Date: 10/18/21 Archive Date: 10/18/21 DOCKET NO. 13-18 266 DATE: October 18, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran did not report for a VA examination to determine the current severity of his bilateral hearing loss. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 501; 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably in the United States Marine Corps from April 1973 to May 1979 and in the United States Navy from July 1982 to June 1994. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2011 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The transcript is of record. This increased rating claim was received in April 2011. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a compensable rating for his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The Board notes this matter was remanded in February 2021 for the scheduling of a VA examination to determine the current severity of the bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran was contacted by VA in July 2021 in order to assess his willingness to report for his VA examination. He stated that he did not want to report for his VA examination and wanted his claim to be evaluated based on the evidence of record. When entitlement to a benefit cannot be established without a current VA examination or reexamination and a claimant, without good cause, fails to report for such examination or reexamination, a claim for an increased rating shall be summarily denied based on the failure to appear. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b); see also Turk v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 565, 56970 (2008). Examples of good cause include, but are not limited to, the illness or hospitalization of the claimant, or death of an immediate family member. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a). VA's duty to assist is not always a one-way street. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). The Veteran must cooperate in VA's efforts to obtain evidence needed to adjudicate his claim. The Board finds that the Veteran has not submitted any evidence sufficient to establish good cause for failing to attend his scheduled examination. As the Veteran cancelled the examination without providing good cause or requesting to reschedule, the Board finds that a remand for further examinations or opinions is not warranted in this case. Id. The Board notes VA examination was conducted in August 2011, April 2013. The results of these examinations do not document the presence of a compensable rating for hearing loss in either ear. As noted above, the Board finds that the Veteran nor his representative have offered good cause for the cancellation or requested that the examination be rescheduled since, despite having been informed in a July 2021 supplemental statement of the case that the Veteran had failed to report for his scheduled examination. Id. The Board determines that the increased rating benefit cannot be established without a current VA examination of the Veteran. In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran was to be scheduled for a VA examination in conjunction with the claim for an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss. Further, the examination was requested to determine the nature of the current severity of the bilateral hearing loss and was necessary to establish entitlement to the benefits being sought. The Veteran cancelled the scheduled examination and has not provided good cause for doing so. As such, the Veteran's claim for an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss must be denied as a matter of law. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (b); see Turk, 21 Vet. App. at 56970. G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J.T. Massey, 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.