Citation Nr: 21064275 Decision Date: 10/19/21 Archive Date: 10/19/21 DOCKET NO. 16-55 591 DATE: October 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from August 1978 to August 1982 and from January 1983 to April 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which continued the noncompensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a hearing in July 2019. A copy of the transcript has been reviewed and associated with the claims file. This matter was before the Board in August 2020, at which time it was remanded for additional evidentiary development. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Pursuant to the Board's remand instructions, a VA examination was performed in September 2020 to assess the severity of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. However, the examiner indicated that puretone testing was invalid in both ears and there was poor agreement between responses to speech and tones. The examiner further indicated that the Veteran was able to answer history questions at conversational loudness level (65 decibel (dB)). After a review of the September 2020 VA examination and evidence of record, the Board finds that a new VA examination is warranted. In this regard, the examiner failed to review and discuss the Veteran's hearing testimony in July 2019 and private August 2015 audiogram as requested in the remand instructions. Moreover, the examiner failed to discuss whether the lack of puretone testing results was due to the deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge, the record, or she did not have the knowledge or training. Lastly, the examiner failed to provide an estimate as to the Veteran's puretone results after reviewing the record and noting that the Veteran was able to answer questions at 65 dB. Accordingly, the Board finds that a new VA examination and medical opinion is warranted on remand. If the examiner is unable to provide puretone testing results, he or she should conduct a review of the record and provide an estimate. If unable to provide an estimate, he or she should explain whether it is due to the deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge, the record, or the examiner does not have the knowledge or training. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file the Veteran's updated VA treatment records from October 2020 to the present. 2. After completion of #1, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The claims file, including a copy of this remand, must be reviewed and such review should be noted in the examination report. All indicate tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings then reported in detail. If the examiner is unable to report puretone testing results and/or speech discrimination scores, he or she should conduct a review of the record and provide an estimate. The examiner should also review the private April 2015 audiogram and interpret the puretone testing results. The examiner should provide a comprehensive rationale for each opinion provided. Specifically, the examiner should discuss the July 2019 hearing testimony and the private April 2015 audiogram submitted by the Veteran. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports are to be considered in formulating any opinion. If any opinion cannot be given without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain why and state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner does not have the knowledge or training. As appropriate, the AOJ should conduct additional development or supplement the record. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Merrick 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.