Citation Nr: 21074609 Decision Date: 12/15/21 Archive Date: 12/15/21 DOCKET NO. 15-32 014 DATE: December 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1972 to November 1980. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office that denied the Veteran's claim for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss and continued the zero percent (non-compensable) rating. The Board notes that, in his September 2015 VA Form 9 (Substantive Appeal), the Veteran requested a Board hearing. He was scheduled to appear at a Board hearing in November 2018. However, he did not appear for such hearing. This case was previously before the Board in March 2021, when it was remanded to obtain outstanding treatment records, to specifically include audiograms dated October 2012, December 2014, January 2016, November 2017, and January 2019, and to clarify whether these audiograms were performed using the Maryland CNC word list. The matter now returns for further appellate review. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Prior to adjudicating the claim for an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss, the Board finds that additional development should be undertaken. In Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447 (2007), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that in addition to providing objective test results, a VA audiologist must fully describe the functional effects caused by a hearing disability in his or her final report. The Veteran's representative has asserted the VA audiological examinations conducted during the claims period did not adequately elicit information from the Veteran regarding the impact of his hearing loss on his daily life. The Veteran's representative asserts that such negates the opportunity for the Veteran to avail himself of a potential extraschedular evaluation as it could provide insight into the Veteran's ability to engage in communication with his family and occupational life. The representative, therefore, requests that the claim be remanded. See September 2021 Appellate Brief. The Board agrees that a remand is warranted. First, the Board observes that the Veteran underwent audiological testing in October 2012, December 2014, January 2016, November 2017, and January 2019. Following additional development pursuant to the March 2021 remand, it was determined that the October 2012, December 2014, January 2016, November 2017, and January 2019 audiology tests provide the numerical scores to calculate average pure tone threshold scores, but not the speech discrimination scores Diagnostic Code 6100 requires. See May 2021 VA medical opinion. Rather, the word recognition testing during the October 2012, December 2014, January 2016, November 2017, and January 2019 audiology tests were conducted using the CID W22 Word List. Id. Without the scores from both sets of tests, the Board is unable to evaluate the severity of the Veteran's disability under Table VI. Also, those tests do not indicate exceptional speech patterns and the examiners did not indicate that speech discrimination testing was not appropriate. So, the alternative rating criteria under Table VIa do not apply. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85(c), 4.86. Without the Maryland CNC speech discrimination scores or the availability of the alternate rating criteria, the October 2012, December 2014, January 2016, November 2017, and January 2019 audiological tests are insufficient to evaluate and rate the Veteran's disability. The Board, therefore, observes the results of the June 2013 and October 2019 VA audiological examinations. In the present case, with respect to the question, "Does the Veteran's hearing loss impact ordinary conditions of daily life, including ability to work," the examiner replied "no," without further explanation. In the Board's view, that statement, standing alone, is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Martinak. Consistent with the findings of Martinak, and given the over two years since he was last examined, a new examination is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of records pertaining to any relevant VA treatment the Veteran has received since the time that such records were last procured, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. 2. After the foregoing development has been completed to the extent possible, arrange to have the Veteran scheduled for a VA audiology examination. The examiner should review the record. All indicated tests should be conducted, to specifically include puretone audiometry and Maryland CNC speech discrimination testing, and the results reported. As part of the final report, the examiner must fully describe the functional effects caused by the Veteran's hearing disability. A complete medical rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the issues remaining on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Richard Kettler Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Smith, 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.