Citation Nr: 21071495 Decision Date: 11/30/21 Archive Date: 11/30/21 DOCKET NO. 16-29 408 DATE: November 30, 2021 REMANDED A disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right temporomandibular joint (TMJ) derangement is remanded. A compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1993 to October 1997 in the United States Marine Corps. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In August 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned during a virtual hearing. A transcript of the hearing is included in the electronic claims file. 1. A disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right TMJ derangement is remanded. 2. A compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran last underwent VA examinations for his TMJ and bilateral hearing loss disabilities over seven years ago, in May 2014 and April 2014, respectively. At the August 2021 hearing, he reported symptomatology related to both of these disabilities that was not documented in previous records, and testified that his disabilities have worsened since he was last examined by VA. In support of his claim for a higher rating for the TMJ disability, he submitted an August 2018 narrative report from his private dentist. The report, while indicating a possible worsening of the disability, does not contain complete information for rating the disability under the applicable diagnostic code(s). In support of his claim for a higher rating for bilateral hearing loss, he submitted a private August 2018 audiological report in graph form, indicating a worsening of the disability based on puretone thresholds. The report, however, does not contain speech discrimination scores, as are required in rating the disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a). Of note, the private audiological report does not require remand pursuant to Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 259 (2011) as the type of speech discrimination test used is not unclear; rather, the report is clear that speech discrimination testing was not conducted at all. Given the indications of a possible worsening of the disabilities, the Board finds that updated examinations assessing the current severity of the disabilities should be provided. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.327(a) (2020); Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 182 (2007); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997). As for the TMJ examination, the examiner must provide findings compliant with Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017), as the May 2014 VA examiner did not provide sufficient findings in this regard. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Afford the Veteran a VA examination to ascertain the current severity of his bilateral hearing loss, in accordance with the applicable worksheet for rating the disability. 2. Afford the Veteran a VA examination to ascertain the current severity of his right TMJ derangement, in accordance with the applicable worksheet for rating the disability. As for functional loss after repeated use or during flare-ups, if the Veteran endorses experiencing functional loss due to either event, the examiner must obtain information regarding the frequency, duration, characteristics, severity, and/or functional loss related to such flare-ups or after repeated use. If the examination is not being conducted during a flare-up or after repeated use over time, the examiner should provide an opinion based on estimates derived from the information above as to the additional loss of range of motion that may be present during a flare-up. (Continued on the next page) If the examiner cannot provide an opinion as to additional loss of motion during a flare-up without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must 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), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Smith, 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.