Citation Nr: 21022994 Decision Date: 04/19/21 Archive Date: 04/19/21 DOCKET NO. 16-42 925 DATE: April 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for chest laceration residuals is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran, who is the appellant in this case, had service from January 1978 to October 1978. In February 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ); a transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. 6. Entitlement to service connection for chest laceration residuals is remanded. 7. Entitlement to service connection for right carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. 8. Entitlement to service connection for left carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. Evidence indicates that there may be outstanding relevant VA treatment records. During a February 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran reported that he has continued to receive VA treatment for the disabilities on appeal. Any VA treatment records are within VA’s constructive possession, and are considered potentially relevant to the issues on appeal. A remand is required to allow VA to obtain them. Concerning the laceration of the chest, service treatment records refelct in August 1978 that the Veteran was seen for pscyhiatric care and was noted to have lacerations of the chest. As such, an examination should be scheduled to determine the nature and etiology of any current condition. Concerning the hearing loss and tinnitus, the Veteran did not attend a previously scheduled examination. He testified that he was exposed to noise from printing presses and described decreased hearing since service. In light of his testimony, an examination should be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from June 2016 to the Present. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his claimed lacerations of the chest. The examiner must review the claims file. If a diagnosis cannot be provided but the Veteran’s condition manifests in symptoms that cause functional impairment, then the examiner should consider them a “disability” for the purpose of providing the requested opinion(s) below. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: Is it at least as likely as not any current chest lacerations are related to service? The examiner must discuss the August 1978 service treatment records. A complete rationale for all opinions is required. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for the claimed hearing loss and tinnitus. The examiner must review the claims file. If a diagnosis cannot be provided but the Veteran’s condition manifests in symptoms that cause functional impairment, then the examiner should consider them a “disability” for the purpose of providing the requested opinion(s) below. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: a) Is it at least as likely as not that any current hearing loss and tinnitus are related to service, including noise from printing presses. b) Is it at least as likely as not that the hearing loss and tinnitus (1) began during active service, (2) manifested within 1 year after discharge from service, or (3) was noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology since service? Provide a rationale to support the opinion(s). H. SEESEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Connally, 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.