Citation Nr: 21010267 Decision Date: 02/24/21 Archive Date: 02/24/21 DOCKET NO. 16-01 291 DATE: February 24, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for the service-connected bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Marine Corps from June 1971 to July 1979 and from April 1981 to December 1984. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The matter was previously remanded in August 2018 for further development. The matter returns for appellate consideration. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for the service-connected bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran asserts that his hearing loss is more severe than contemplated by the assigned rating. Although the Board regrets the delay, another remand is required before the Board can issue an appellate decision. Current VA guidelines direct that, when speech recognition is 92 percent or less in a given ear, a modified performance intensity function should be obtained. See VA Handbook of Standard Procedures and Best Practices for Audiology Compensation and Pension Examinations, sec. B, pt. 2, Table 7 (K.C. Dennis ed., 2004) (providing detailed procedures for obtaining a modified performance-intensity function); Revised Audio AMIE Worksheet, Veterans Benefit Administration (VBA) Fast Letter 10-06 (Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, February 17, 2010). In August 2018, the Board remanded the claim for another VA examination for the purpose of evaluating the current severity of the Veteran’s service-connected bilateral hearing loss, specifically including medical comment on the speech recognition ability of record in the April 2017 VA examination and a modified performance intensity function. A November 2020 VA examination was administered. However, the examiner failed to discuss the April 2017 VA speech discrimination results, which showed speech recognition ability of 90 percent in the left ear, nor is there any indication that a modified performance intensity function was obtained especially considering the Veteran scored less than 90 percent, bilaterally, upon speech recognition in the November 2020 VA examination. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Board confers the right to compliance with remand orders). The Board also notes the Veteran submitted a private audiological evaluation dated June 2011. See September 2011 Medical Treatment Record. The examination reflected puretone threshold measurements and speech audiometry evaluations for the bilateral ears. However, it is unclear whether Maryland CNC testing was used in the evaluation. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that the Board must seek clarification from private examiners, or the Veteran, in “those instances in which the missing information is relevant, factual, and objective-that is, not a matter of opinion-and where the missing evidence bears greatly on the probative value of the private examination report.” See Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 259, 270 (2011). In this case, it is necessary to determine whether the Maryland CNC Test was used by the June 2011 private audiological examiner. On remand, the RO should schedule the Veteran for another examination to evaluate the current severity of the Veteran’s service-connected bilateral hearing loss, specifically including medical comment on the speech recognition ability of record AND a modified performance intensity function. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the private audiologist (or hearing aid specialist) who conducted the June 2011 audiological assessment to determine if the Maryland CNC Test was used in evaluating the Veteran. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The examiner must be provided access to the electronic claims file and indicate review of the file in the examination report. The examiner should attempt to ascertain the Veteran’s puretone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz and document his word recognition score using the Maryland CNC test. If the puretone thresholds cannot be determined or if the Maryland CNC test is not appropriate for this Veteran, please explain why this is so. The examiner must discuss the Veteran’s speech recognition ability, as demonstrated on the April 2017 and November 2020 VA examinations, and the examiner must make certain that if the Veteran’s speech recognition ability on the present VA examination is less than 92 percent in either ear, a modified performance intensity function is obtained. The examiner must confirm such actions were taken. The rationale for any opinion rendered must be provided. 2. The RO must review the obtained examination report and ensure that it complies with the above remand directive. If the report is deficient in any manner, undertake corrective actions before returning the claim to the Board for further appellate review. DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Y. Asfaw, 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.