Citation Nr: 21022637
Decision Date: 04/16/21	Archive Date: 04/16/21

DOCKET NO. 17-23 902
DATE: April 16, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 50 percent for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from May 1958 to May 1960 and September 1961 to August 1962.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This case was remanded in August 2019 for further development.

In July 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; a transcript of that hearing is of record.

Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 50 percent for a bilateral hearing loss disability.

In December 2020, the Veteran submitted November 2020 VA treatment records. Because the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) has not obtained records since July 2020 and outstanding VA treatment records are in VA’s constructive possession, remand is necessary to obtain VA treatment records from July 2020 to the present.

The Veteran submitted October 2016 and July 2019 private audiological evaluations. See February 2017 and August 2019 correspondence. The July 2019 private evaluation reflects that the NU-6 test was used for speech discrimination testing, but the October 2016 evaluation does not identify the test used. Because the private records do not identify the speech discrimination testing used, remand is necessary to obtain clarification from the Veteran’s private audiologist. See Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 259, 270 (2011) (stating that “in some circumstances, there exists a requirement to seek further information from a non-VA medical professional who has provided an examination report, either directly or through the claimant who submitted the private examination report”). 

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. The AOJ should obtain copies of VA treatment records from July 2020 to the present.

2. The AOJ must request from the Veteran the necessary authorization to contact his private audiologist from Kentucky Ear, Nose and Throat Head and Neck Surgeons, for clarification of the October 2016 private audiological examination. If and once the Veteran complies with the AOJ’s request, the AOJ should ask the private audiologist’s office to clarify what speech discrimination test was used during the October 2016 evaluation, specifically whether it was the Maryland CNC Word list. If the office fails to respond to the request, the AOJ should notify the Veteran and provide him the opportunity to obtain the information from the private audiologist directly to submit to VA. The AOJ should NOT merely request a VA examiner to provide clarification, as that will be considered insufficient.

3. If upon completion of the above action the issue remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures.

 

E. I. VELEZ

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J. Sandler, 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.