Citation Nr: 21031454 Decision Date: 05/21/21 Archive Date: 05/21/21 DOCKET NO. 14-20 231 DATE: May 21, 2021 REMANDED 1. The issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent from December 10, 2012 to April 15, 2015, and in excess of 50 percent thereafter, for the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is remanded. 2. The issue of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty October 1963 to October 1965, and also had service with the Army Reserve. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA or Board) on appeal from a May 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Boise, Idaho, in which the RO effectuated the Board's grant of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. In July 2016, the Veteran testified during a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veteran's Law Judge. A transcript of this hearing has been associated with the claims file. In February 2018, the Board issued a decision denying entitlement to an initial compensable rating for the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss prior to December 2012 and remanded the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for the period following December 2012. The Veteran appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). By a January 2019 Order, the Court, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), remanded the case for action consistent with the JMPR, which determined that the Board failed to address whether the issue of entitlement to a TDIU had been raised along with the bilateral hearing loss increased rating claim. The Court confirmed that the Veteran was not appealing the Board's previous denial of an increased rating for the bilateral hearing loss for the period prior to December 2012. The medical and lay evidence of record (notably letters from S. Stirland, and Dr. M. W.), suggests that the Veteran may not be able to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of his service-connected hearing loss. Thus, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU has been raised and is within the jurisdiction of the Board. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453 (2009). The Board previously noted that the issue of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, as secondary to a service-connected bilateral hearing loss disability and/or service-connected tinnitus disability, had been raised by the record during the Veteran's July 2016 BVA Travel Board hearing. However, this issue has still not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over it, and it is again referred to the AOJ for appropriate action. 38 C.F.R. § 19.9 (b) (2020). For his part, the Veteran is encouraged to submit a formal application for benefits, if he still wishes to pursue the claim. 1. The issue of entitlement to an increased rating for the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss after December 2012, is remanded. Letters from Dr. M.W., dated March 19, 2015 and April 11, 2016, reflect that the Veteran received treatment for his service-connected bilateral hearing loss at the Twin Falls VA Community Based Outpatient Clinic during the appeal period. Specifically, Dr. M.W. stated that she evaluated the Veteran on March 19, 2015 and February 2, 2016. She also referred to a hearing test completed on January 21, 2016. These evaluation reports, and any associated audiograms, have not been made a part of the Veteran's electronic claims file. It also does not appear that any of the Veteran's records related to his treatment at the Twin Falls Clinic have been associated with the record. Thus, a remand is necessary to obtain all available records from the Twin Falls VA Clinic in order to properly adjudicate the Veteran's claim. 2. The issue of entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. The appeal regarding a TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the pending increased rating claim that has been remanded for further development. Thus, the Board must defer adjudication of the claim on appeal pending the adjudication of the inextricably intertwined claim. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of the Veteran's complete treatment records from the Twin Falls VA Community Based Outpatient Clinic. Specifically, obtain all records (and any audiograms) related to the evaluations completed on March 19, 2015, January 21, 2016, and February 2, 2016, and associate them with the Veteran's electronic claims file. If these records are unavailable, the RO should document all attempts that were made to obtain these records 2. Ask the Veteran to identify all relevant non-VA health care providers, other than those already associated with his claims file, and to authorize VA to obtain any non-VA records. The identified non-VA records should be sought. If any requested records cannot be obtained, the Veteran should be informed; and told of the efforts made and the further actions that will be taken with regard to the claim. The Veteran may submit non-VA medical records directly to VA. MICHAEL KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Erin J. Trojanowski, 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.