Citation Nr: 21024437 Decision Date: 04/22/21 Archive Date: 04/22/21 DOCKET NO. 20-14 968 DATE: April 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a central auditory processing disorder (CAPD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran was a member of the Army National Guard from June 1948 to June 1952, andserved on active duty in the United States Air Force from September 1952 to September 1956. The matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2018 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The matter was previously before the Board in July 2020 when it was remanded for further development. The matter has now been returned to the Board. First, the Board notes that in July 2020, a diagnosis of CAPD was found to be of record based on a September 2019 statement by a private examiner. However, in January 2021, a VA examiner, identified as a licensed audiologist, disputed such and explained in no uncertain terms that CAPD was not a valid diagnosis in this case, and in fact could not have been diagnosed properly in the presence of actual sensorineural hearing loss. On review of the file in light of this well-supported opinion, the Board notes the originator of the private opinion, Mr. D. Smelser, is not identified as an audiologist. Public records show no state license, and the April 2020 VA examiner stressed that Mr. Smelser was a “hearing instrument specialist” and non-audiologist who “is only licensed to sell hearing aids and is not licensed to diagnose audiological disorders….” Accordingly the fact of current disability is thrown into question. Moreover, as to the question of nexus, the January 2021 VA examination is inadequate. In January 2021, a VA examiner opined that the Veteran clearly has an auditory processing disorder but does not meet the requirements for a central auditory processing disorder. The examiner’s statements are contradictory and explanation is required, particularly in light of the questions regarding validity of a diagnosis. Once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a service connection claim, an adequate examination must be provided. Barr v. Shinseki, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). Accordingly, an examination to determine whether the Veteran has an auditory processing disorder, and whether such is related to service, should be completed upon remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate with the claims file updated VA treatment records. 2. Return the claims file to the VA contract examiner who offered the January 2021 opinion. If he is not available, another qualified audiologist may be consulted. The claims folder must be reviewed in its entirety. The reviewer must indicate whether the Veteran currently has an auditory processing disorder; if “central” auditory processing disorder is a separate entity, the examiner must specify such. For all diagnoses indicated, the examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not caused or aggravated by service. 2. Then, readjudicate the claim on appeal. If any benefit sought remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case and, following appropriate time for response, return the matter to the Board for further consideration. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Nolan, Shane D. 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.