Citation Nr: 21012957 Decision Date: 03/08/21 Archive Date: 03/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-00 538 DATE: March 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a September 4, 2018, decision, the Board reopened the Veteran’s previously denied claim of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and remanded it to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of this disability. 2. The Veteran, without good cause, failed to report for VA examination when it was scheduled in August 2019. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim of service connection for bilateral hearing is denied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.655(a)-(b) (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from October 1979 to October 1982 in the U.S. Army. He also had additional unverified U.S. Army National Guard service. In September 2018, the Board remanded the currently appealed claim to the AOJ for additional development. A review of the claims file shows that there has been substantial compliance with the Board’s remand directives to the extent possible. The Board directed the AOJ to obtain updated treatment records for the Veteran schedule him for examination to determine the nature and etiology of his bilateral hearing loss. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); see also Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141 (1999) (holding that another remand is not required under Stegall where the Board’s remand instructions were substantially complied with), aff’d, Dyment v. Principi, 287 F.3d 1377 (2002). Additional treatment records subsequently were associated with the claims file. The Veteran, without good cause, failed to report for VA examination when it was scheduled in August 2019. The Veteran appointed his current service representative to represent him before VA by filing a completed VA Form 21-22 at the AOJ in October 2020. The Board finds that the Veteran’s claim of service connection for bilateral hearing loss must be denied. The Veteran essentially contends that he incurred bilateral hearing loss during active service and experienced continuous post-service disability. As noted above, the Board remanded this claim in September 2018 and directed the AOJ to schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed bilateral hearing loss. The Board noted in this decision that prior examinations of record were inconclusive as to the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed bilateral hearing loss and were inadequate for VA adjudication purposes. The AOJ notified the Veteran in April 2019 correspondence that he was being scheduled for examination. He subsequently notified VA in August 2019 that he “declined” to report for examination. In other words, the Veteran failed to report for examination when it was scheduled in August 2019. Neither the Veteran nor his service representative have provided good cause for his failure to report for this examination. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a) (2019). In this regard, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that “[t]he duty to assist is not always a one-way street. If a Veteran wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the putative evidence.” See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). The Veteran must be prepared to meet his obligations by cooperating with VA efforts to provide an adequate medical examination. See Olson v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 480 (1992). The Board finds that the AOJ met the duty to assist the Veteran in this appeal by scheduling him for examination and providing him notice of this examination. The Board also finds that the Veteran did not cooperate with VA efforts to provide an adequate medical examination when he failed to report for examination when it was scheduled in August 2019. The Board next notes that, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b), when a Veteran fails to report for examination scheduled in conjunction with “a reopened claim for a benefit which was previously disallowed…the claim shall be denied.” See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b) (2019) (emphasis added). As noted above, the Veteran’s previously denied service connection claim for bilateral hearing loss was reopened and remanded for additional development (scheduling an examination) in the Board’s September 2018 decision. Thus, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. See also Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael T. Osborne, 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.