Citation Nr: 21016093 Decision Date: 03/19/21 Archive Date: 03/19/21 DOCKET NO. 18-01 061 DATE: March 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1953 to August 1956 with additional Reserve service. This matter come to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which continued a 10 percent rating for bilateral hearing loss. The Board notes that the Veteran requested a videoconference Board hearing in his December 2017 substantive appeal (VA Form 9). However, after multiple attempts to schedule a hearing were postponed, he withdrew that request in a December 2021 letter received at the RO on January 8, 20201. This letter specifically requested that his hearing request be withdrawn, and the appeal be forwarded to a Veteran’s Law Judge. The Board notes that a January 13, 2021 letter was sent by the RO regarding scheduling a videoconference hearing with an optional teleconference hearing scheduled for February 2021. However, in light of the Veteran’s unequivocal request to withdraw his hearing, there is no need for the RO to take any further action to schedule a videoconference hearing. Increased rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran maintains that his bilateral hearing loss disability is more severe than his current 10 percent evaluation indicates. The Veteran’s last VA audiology examination addressing the severity of his service-connected hearing loss was in February 2017, four years ago. The Veteran has alleged that his service-connected hearing loss has worsened in a December 2020 hearing withdrawal letter received January 8, 2020 where he said his most recent visit to a VA audiology clinic was on December 2020, and said that he has had to have hearing aids adjusted as his hearing continues to decline. In light of his reported worsening hearing and in light of the amount of time since his last examination for this disability and the possible increase in severity since last examination, reexamination is needed to fully and fairly evaluate the condition on appeal. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181-82 (2007), citing Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505 -06 (1998) (“Where the record does not adequately reveal the current state of the claimant’s disability... the fulfillment of the statutory duty to assist requires a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination.”). See also Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994) (wherein the Court determined the Board should have ordered a contemporaneous examination of the Veteran because a 23-month old examination was too remote in time to adequately support the decision in an appeal for an increased rating); VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995). Additionally, the most recent VA treatment records of record are dated from February 2017. Given that he cites treatment for hearing loss at the VA in San Antonio, Texas as recently as December 2020, an effort should be made to obtain these, and any other records that may be pertinent to this matter. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. All pertinent treatment records not yet obtained, including VA treatment records since February 2017 and treatment from any other sources indicated should be obtained and associated with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The claims file, including this remand must be reviewed by the examiner and such review should be noted in the examination report. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings then reported in detail. The examiner must fully describe any functional effects associated with the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and the impact of his hearing disability upon his vocational pursuits. The examiner should also indicate the occupational effects of the hearing loss, if any. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed must be included in the examination report. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the examiner must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Eckart 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.