Citation Nr: 21066491 Decision Date: 11/01/21 Archive Date: 11/01/21 DOCKET NO. 18-34 263A DATE: November 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1958 to February 1962. The issue was previously remanded by the Board in September 2020 and April 2021. The claim for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include insomnia and unspecified depressive disorder was granted by an August 2021 rating decision. This decision is considered a full grant of the benefits on appeal, as such the claim is no longer before the Board. 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The September 2020 Board remand requested a VA examination to determine the severity of the Veteran's hearing loss as there was evidence of worsening after the October 2017 VA examination. The remand also requested clarification as to why audiology testing from March 2017 and March 2018 indicated the results were not adequate for rating purposes. An October 2020 VA examination noted audiological results were invalid and could not be used for rating purposes and that the Maryland CNC word recognition test was not appropriate. However, this examiner did not address why the March 2017 and March 2018 testing results were inadequate for rating purposes. The matter was remanded again for an addendum opinion. In May 2021, an addendum opinion was rendered explaining that the Veteran's March 2017 examination results were valid for rating purposes. The examiner addressed the October 2020 VA test results. The examiner recommended that the Veteran should have "a repeat examination to re-assess pure tone and word recognition" results when the Veteran is able to provide consistent responses. It is not clear what is preventing the Veteran from providing consistent responses. Indeed, as previously noted, there is evidence suggesting that there are non-organic factors (over-endorsing) as well as physiological factors such as cerumen impaction. The Veteran should be scheduled for a new examination. In relation thereto, the Veteran is reminded that the duty to assist is not a one-way street. When called upon to participate in an examination, it is incumbent upon the claimant to fully cooperate. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991) The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran's disability under the rating criteria. (a.) The examiner should address the test results from March 2017 and March 2018 that were indicated to be inadequate for rating purposes and, to the extent possible, explain why the results are inadequate. (b.) Should it be determined the VA examination results are not adequate for rating purposes, it should be explained what factors are impacting the results in such a way as to render them inadequate for rating purposes. If the examiner attributes inconsistent results to non-organic factors (e.g. over-endorsing or exaggerating), such should be clearly stated along with an explanation. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Rekowski 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.