Citation Nr: 21027644 Decision Date: 05/06/21 Archive Date: 05/06/21 DOCKET NO. 17-25 175 DATE: May 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served from March 1988 to July 1994 with Army National Guard of Kentucky and US Army Reserves. He had active duty training in June 5, 1989 to August 10, 1989, and numerous other periods of active duty for training and inactive duty for training. This matter is on appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) from a January 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In March 2021, the Veteran testified in a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is in the evidence of record. At the hearing, the record was held open for an additional 30 days to submit another audiogram. However, no additional evidence was received. After a thorough review of the record, the Board finds that more development is necessary prior to final adjudication of the claim on appeal. The record shows VA treatment records were received in March 2017. The Veteran was a new patient to the VA establishing care and had transferred from the private sector. The evidentiary record does not show attempts were made to obtain VA treatment records since March 2017. The record also does not show that attempts were made to obtain records from his private sector providers. Furthermore, the Veteran testified in his March 2021 hearing to receiving audiologic testing through his employer on a yearly basis and that this testing diagnosed hearing loss. On remand, the RO should attempt to obtain and associate these records with the claims file. The Veteran should be provided the opportunity to complete a VA Form 21-4142 and 21-4142a to authorize the release of information from the medical providers he identifies. After the above development, the Board finds the Veteran should undergo another VA examination regarding his service connection claim for hearing loss. A VA examination in 2017 showed that the Veteran's hearing did not meet the criteria for a current hearing loss disability as defined by 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Given the fact that the last examination was four years ago, and the Veteran recently testified that he had been diagnosed with hearing loss following audiologic testing, he should be afforded a new VA examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran a VA Form 21-4142 and 21-4142a. Request that he identify all relevant health care providers including the name and address who have treated him. If the Veteran identified a private provider, make two requests for the authorized records, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 2. After the above development is complete schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination. Audiometric testing should be completed and any bilateral hearing loss disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 should be noted. A Maryland CNC speech recognition test must be completed. (a.) Then, the examiner is asked to opine on the following: If it is at least as likely as not that his hearing loss had its onset in service or was otherwise etiologically related to any event or circumstance of his service. The complete record, to include a copy of this remand and the claims folder, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examination report must include a notation that this record review took place. 3. After completion of the above and any additional development deemed necessary, the issues on appeal should be reviewed with consideration of all applicable laws and regulations. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded the opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further consideration. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K.L. Byers 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.