Citation Nr: 21025962 Decision Date: 04/29/21 Archive Date: 04/29/21 DOCKET NO. 15-32 904 DATE: April 29, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ear disability, to include a central processing disorder, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service in the United States Army from March 2002 to October 2013. He received the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Campaign Star, among other commendations. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a June 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2019, the Veteran testified before the undersigned in a videoconference hearing. A written transcript of that hearing has been prepared and is associated with the evidence of record. As the Board noted in its June 2019 remand decision regarding this matter, when a claimant makes a claim, he is seeking service connection for symptoms regardless of how those symptoms are diagnosed or labeled. See Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79 (2009); Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). Based on the Veteran’s contentions and lay report of symptoms, the Board broadened the Veteran’s claim to include a broader disability of the ears, which the Board has now specifically broadened to include a central processing disorder. Although regrettable, additional remand is required for substantial compliance with the Board’s previous remand instructions. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 270-71 (1998). 1. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ear disability, to include a central processing disorder, is remanded. The Veteran contends that he has an ear disability caused by his active service. Specifically, he contends that he has a central auditory processing disorder, to include lesions of the central auditory system, caused by his exposure to hazardous noise and explosions during service. See May 2019 Board Hearing Transcript; November 2020 Statement in Support of Claim. Unfortunately, the Board still cannot make a fully informed decision regarding the Veteran’s claim as the VA examination evidence of record is insufficient. The medical examination and opinions obtained on remand failed to address the Veteran’s contentions that his military service caused a central processing disorder that impacts his ability to process sound and speech. Further, VA treatment notes from November 2019 recommended the Veteran be scheduled for a central auditory processing evaluation, however it does not appear that any such evaluation has been completed, nor was this evidence addressed in the most recent VA examination for compensation purposes. See November 2019 Audiology Evaluation; October 2020 VA Examination and Medical Opinions. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any relevant, outstanding VA treatment records that are not already associated with the claims file. If no records are available, the claims folder must indicate this fact and the Veteran should be notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). All attempts to contact the Veteran should be documented in the record. 2. Once the above development is complete, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an audiologist or other qualified clinician to assess the current severity and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed bilateral ear disability, to include a central processing disorder. If an examination for a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is necessary to assess the Veteran’s claim, one should be scheduled. The examiner should review the entire claims file, including a copy of this remand and the examination report should specifically state that a review of the record was conducted. The examiner should take a thorough history of observable symptomatology from the Veteran. The examiner should conduct a thorough review of the medical and lay evidence of record. The examiner should conduct all necessary diagnostic assessments, to include a central auditory processing evaluation, if one was not already conducted (see November 2019 Audiology E & M Note). The examiner should then opine as to the following: (a.) List any and all diagnoses and disorders applicable to the Veteran’s ears and central auditory processing system. Please note specifically whether the Veteran has a central auditory processing disorder. (b.) For each diagnosis, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s diagnosed disability had its onset during active duty service, is related to an incident of service, or began within one year after discharge from active service? The examiner should provide a complete rationale for all opinions provided. If an opinion cannot be provided without to resorting to mere speculation, the examiner should identify all medical and lay evidence considered in this conclusion, fully explain why this is the case, and identify what additional evidence (if any) would allow for a more definitive opinion. 3. Following completion of the foregoing, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should review the record, ensure that the medical opinion evidence adequately addresses the Veteran’s contentions, and readjudicate the claim on appeal. If it remains denied, the AOJ should issue an appropriate supplemental SOC, afford the Veteran and his representative an opportunity to respond, and return the case to the Board. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Hart, Associate 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.