Citation Nr: 21030558 Decision Date: 05/19/21 Archive Date: 05/19/21 DOCKET NO. 20-00 446A DATE: May 19, 2021 REMANDED Whether reduction of the Veteran's disability rating from 10 percent to 0 percent for bilateral hearing loss effective July 18, 2018, was proper is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1964 to April 1966. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2018 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). By way of background, the RO decreased the Veteran's disability rating for bilateral hearing loss from 10 percent to a noncompensable rating effective July 18, 2018 in the August 2018 rating decision. The Veteran timely appealed to the Board requesting a hearing. Said hearing occurred in April 2021, a transcript of which has been associated with the claims file and reviewed. As an aside, the Board notes the Veteran testified to experiencing tinnitus; however, this issue is not before the Board. The Veteran is invited to a file a service connection claim should he wish to do so under 38 C.F.R. § 3.155. Whether reduction of the Veteran's disability rating from 10 percent to 0 percent for bilateral hearing loss effective July 18, 2018, was proper is remanded. The Veteran contends his bilateral hearing loss did not improve to warrant a rating reduction. The Board finds the evidence of record is insufficient to resolve the Veteran's claim. The Veteran has been afforded multiple VA examinations to determine the severity of his bilateral hearing loss. Indeed, VA examinations occurred in October 2014, April 2016, August 2016, December 2017, March 2018, and July 2018. Upon review, however, the CNC word recognition scores from said examinations have been fairly inconsistent. The Board notes the December 2017 and 2018 examinations revealed similar average puretone thresholds whereas the CNC word recognition scores varied from 78% in the right ear and 72% in the left ear in 2017; 82% in the right ear and 84% in the left ear in March 2018; and 76% in the right ear and 94% in the left ear in July 2018. The Veteran testified that he does not believe his bilateral hearing loss improved during this time. Further, to date, there has not been an opinion obtained addressing the conflicting CNC word recognition scores throughout time, especially most recently. Thus, the Board finds remand is necessary to assess the current severity of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss, and to the extent possible, reconcile the conflicting CNC word recognition scores. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.344. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination before an appropriate examiner, different from the examiners in 2018. The entire claims file and this remand should be made available to the examiner for review. The examiner should render an opinion addressing the following: (a.) The current severity of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss; and (b.) An opinion, including rationale, addressing the different CNC word recognition scores found in the Veteran's VA examinations including the most recent CNC word recognition score to be obtained in association with this remand as well as the results in 2018, 2017, 2016, and 2014. In so opining, the examiner is directed to reconcile the conflicting CNC scores reported in the Veteran's VA examinations throughout time, only to the extent possible. Should an opinion be unable to be offered regarding this matter, the examiner should so explain. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for any opinion expressed, based on the examiner's clinical and medical expertise; established medical principles; and references to the evidence of record, as appropriate. If any opinion cannot be expressed without resort to speculation, ensure that the examiner so indicates and discusses why an opinion is not possible, to include whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. (Continued on the next page) 2. After the above development, and any other development deemed necessary, readjudicate the claim. SHEREEN M. MARCUS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A.C. Allen, 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.