Citation Nr: 21008028 Decision Date: 02/11/21 Archive Date: 02/11/21 DOCKET NO. 15-29 565 DATE: February 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1966 to February 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO). In a June 30, 2015, Substantive Appeal (VA Form 9), the Veteran requested a videoconference hearing before a Member of the Board relating to his claim. In September 2015, the Veteran submitted correspondence withdrawing his hearing request in this matter. There are no other hearing requests of record. Accordingly, the Veteran’s hearing request is deemed withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e). This appeal was most recently before the Board in August 2020, at which time the Board remanded the issues on appeal for an additional examination. Unfortunately, additional remand is required.   Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a higher rating because hearing aids, though helpful, have not restored his hearing or cured his tinnitus. See Correspondence (November 2020). He reported having trouble hearing his athletes at noisy meets and or outdoor practices and hearing on the phone, needing to read lips while people spoke loudly to him, and responding inappropriately due to misinterpreting speech. Id. The Veteran notes that “clarity of speech is more a problem than loudness.” A November 2014 VA community care audiologic evaluation by Pennsylvania Ear Institute revealed pure tone thresholds, in decibels, and word recognition (WR) as follows: Hertz 1000 2000 3000 4000 AVG WR Right 40 70 75 80 66 64 Left 30 60 70 70 58 84 The examination report did not indicate whether the Maryland CNC word list was used as required by VA regulations. See Medical Treatment Record (March 2015). The Board is compelled to remand in this case given that the private evaluation was conducted within the appeal period and it is not clear whether the testing was conducted by a state-licensed audiologist (or a student) and whether the Maryland CNC wordlist was utilized. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that VA should clarify such an evidentiary factor when it is relevant, factual and objective. See Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 259 (2010). As the November 2014 audiologic test reflects deceased hearing in the bilateral ears, the private audiologist should be contacted and asked to clarify which speech recognition test was used. In remanding these matters, the Board makes no finding, implicit or otherwise, as to the credibility of the Veteran’s assertions. Neither the Veteran’s credibility nor any lack thereof should be presumed in this remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain clarification, to the extent feasible as to the November 4, 2014, audiology evaluation at the Pennsylvania Ear Institute on the following: Whether the November 4, 2014, audiological testing was conducted by a state-licensed audiology. It is noted that both a student and audiologist signed the evaluation report. Whether the November 4, 2014, audiological evaluation used the Maryland CNC speech recognition test. Document all attempts to obtain clarification of these matters in the claims file. 2. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for the Pennsylvania Ear Institute. Make two requests for the authorized records from the Pennsylvania Ear Institute, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. (Continued on next page) 3. Readjudicate. C.A. SKOW Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Edwards 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.