Citation Nr: 21006712 Decision Date: 02/05/21 Archive Date: 02/05/21 DOCKET NO. 17-09 177 DATE: February 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right ear hearing loss disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1990 to September 1999 and February 2000 to February 2013 in the United States Army. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2020, the Veteran testified before the undersigned during a videoconference hearing. A transcript of the hearing is included in the electronic claims file. In March 2020, the Board remanded the case to the RO for further development. Specifically, the Board directed the RO to obtain a release from the private medical provider who conducted the audiologist exam that was submitted by the Veteran and then contact the audiologist to determine if the Maryland CNC test was used. The Board then directed the RO to obtain a VA examination if hearing loss for VA purposes was shown. The RO requested a release from the Veteran in March 2020 but did not receive a response. The duty to assist is a two-way street, and the Veteran is responsible to assist VA in developing his claims. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Entitlement to service connection for a right ear hearing loss disability. The Veteran underwent VA audiological examination in April 2013, but hearing loss for VA purposes was not shown. Recently however, he submitted a February 2020 private audiogram which may support his claim. In Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 259 (2011), the Court held that when a private examination report "reasonably appears" to contain information necessary to properly decide a claim but is "unclear" or "not suitable for rating purposes," and the information reasonably contained in the report otherwise cannot be obtained, VA has a duty to ask the private examiner to clarify the report, or the Board must explain why such clarification was not needed. The Board attempted to have the RO obtain a release from the Veteran in order to contact the private audiologist, but none was obtained. Upon further review of the private audiologist report it appears that “CID W-22 List 2A” was used in the examination. This is not compatible with VA regulations. Additionally, the Board requested that the graphical data be converted into numerical form. This could not be completed by the audiologist, but the Veteran’s representative attempted to do so in the IHP. The Veteran had a VA examination in April 2013 that found the Veteran had 96 percent score on the Maryland CNC test in the right year and a 100 percent in the left. Abnormal contralateral acoustic reflexes were noted, but the right ear did not have hearing loss for VA purposes. The Veteran’s private audiology exam from February 2020 appears to show a marked difference between that exam and the Veteran’s prior April 2013 examination. VA's duty to assist includes providing a medical examination when it is necessary to make a decision on a claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. In this case, the Board finds that there is competent evidence that the Veteran's claimed disability may be associated with his active duty military service. As such, the Board finds it necessary to remand this issue to obtain a VA examination to determine the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 79. The Veteran should be afforded an updated VA examination to obtain an opinion addressing the etiology of such hearing loss, as service records document both hazardous noise exposure and abnormal audiological findings. See, e.g., February 2013 Central Auditory Processing Test Report. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to obtain an opinion addressing the nature and etiology of his right ear hearing loss disability. A complete explanation should be provided for all opinions rendered. The examiner must address whether it is at least as likely as not that the current right ear hearing loss disability began during active service or is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include the Veteran’s exposure to hazardous noise in service. In rendering this opinion, the examiner should consider the February 2013 Central Auditory Processing Test Report. M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. A. Johnston, 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.