Citation Nr: 21031306 Decision Date: 05/21/21 Archive Date: 05/21/21 DOCKET NO. 17-42 410 DATE: May 21, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service with the United States Army from March 1969 to January 1971. The instant matter is on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision. In February 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned in a virtual hearing. A transcript of the proceedings has been associated with the record. 1. The claim of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, but remand is necessary in order to obtain clarification regarding the Veteran's vastly different audiological evaluations of record. The Veteran underwent VA examinations to determine the nature and severity of his bilateral hearing loss in June 2015 and July 2017. These examinations found speech discrimination scores in the 80-percent range using VA's required Maryland CNC word lists. The Veteran additionally obtained three private audiology examinations in March 2015, July 2016, and May 2019 that note significantly more severe speech discrimination scores in the 40 to 60 percent ranges. The difference in speech discrimination would significantly alter the Veteran's current noncompensable rating. It is unclear, however, why speech discrimination scores were so divergent, and if these private examinations used the same Maryland CNC list utilized by VA. By way of example, the Veteran testified in his hearing before the undersigned that the private examinations were more thorough, and they had longer word lists. The July 2016 private examination additionally noted that it utilized the Maryland CNC "Modified Performance Intensity Function". In consulting the Veteran's limited treatment records for the period on appeal, it is not clear that he utilizes a hearing aid for his purportedly severe hearing loss as such is denied in VA treatment records. These records similarly do not reflect additional audiological examinations, only informal whisper testing to determine the existence of hearing loss. Thus, clarification is necessary on remand in order to explain the significant discrepancies between the private and VA examinations, as well as reconcile the findings to determine the most appropriate initial rating for the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and the representative of record in order to identify any outstanding non-VA treatment records regarding the issues on appeal. If non-VA providers are identified, obtain releases for those records. Make all reasonable attempts to obtain the non-VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. If such records cannot be obtained, inform the Veteran and the representative of record, and afford an opportunity to provide these outstanding records. 2. 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. 3. Once the aforementioned development is complete, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to assess the nature and severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The examiner should review the entire claims file, including a copy of this remand. The examiner should specifically indicate all Puretone threshold values and Maryland Speech Recognition scores. The examiner must discuss the discrepancies between the private audiological evaluations of record as compared with the previous VA examinations of record. The examiner is also asked to describe the difference, if any, between the Maryland CNC word list and the Modified Performance Intensity Function. The examination report should specifically state that a review of the record was conducted. 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. (Continued on the next page) 4. Following completion of the foregoing, the AOJ should review the record 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 H. Fisher, 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.