Citation Nr: 21032647 Decision Date: 05/27/21 Archive Date: 05/27/21 DOCKET NO. 15-06 312A DATE: May 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for actinic keratosis and seborrheic keratosis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1968 to April 1970. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of an August 2013 rating decision of the Nashville, Tennessee, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In September 2016, the Veteran requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at his local VA office, but in May 2019, he withdrew his hearing request. In September 2019, the Board remanded the case for further development. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The Board finds that additional development is needed in this case. Regarding the issues on appeal, in its September 2019 remand, the Board requested VA examinations for each of the claimed disabilities. Examination Scheduling Request Contention Cancellation documents, associated with claims file in December 2019, show that the Veteran was unable to be contacted to schedule examinations for his diabetes mellitus and actinic keratosis and seborrheic keratosis conditions. Examination Scheduling Request Contention Cancellation documents, associated with claims file in January 2020, show that the Veteran was unable to be contacted to schedule examinations for his hearing loss and tinnitus conditions. The Board notes that a copy of the notice letter(s) sent to the Veteran to notify him of the scheduled examinations are not of record. A correspondence dated in April 2021, from the Veteran's representative, notes that the Veteran indicated that he never received any communication, by phone or by mail, regarding the scheduled examinations. It was also noted that the Veteran did not have an answering machine and that the best time to reach him, over the phone, was in the morning. Generally, the Board notes that when a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with an original compensation claim, the claim shall be rated based on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. §3.655(b). Here, however, there are no notice letters associated with the claims file informing him of the location, date, and time of the examination. As there is no copy of a letter scheduling the Veteran for a VA examination in the claims file, the Board finds that the record is insufficient to determine whether proper notice of a VA examination was mailed to him so as to permit the application of 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. See Kyhn v. Shinseki, 716 F.3d 572 (2013). Thus, the Board finds that the claims must be remanded so that new VA examinations may be scheduled. The notice letter(s) regarding the examination should be included in the claims file and the letter(s) should be sent to the Veteran's representative as well. The Board reminds the Veteran that, corresponding to VA's duty to assist him, is a duty on his part to cooperate with VA in developing a claim and that failure to report to an examination may impact his appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655; Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 193, 193 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination by an appropriate medical professional to determine the nature and etiology of the claimed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus disabilities. The examiner is to conduct all necessary tests and studies. After review of the entire record, to include the September 2019 Board remand, the examiner is asked to specifically address the following questions: (a). Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the claimed bilateral hearing loss had its clinical onset during active service or is related to any in-service disease, event, or injury, to include exposure to loud noise? (b). Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the claimed tinnitus had its clinical onset during active service or is related to any in-service disease, event, or injury, to include exposure to loud noise? In rendering an opinion, the examiner is requested to consider the lay statements and he or she must provide a comprehensive report including complete rationales for all opinions and conclusions reached. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an appropriate medical professional to determine the nature and etiology of the claimed diabetes mellitus, type II. The examiner is to conduct all necessary tests and studies. After review of the entire record, to include the September 2019 Board remand, the examiner is asked to specifically address the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that any diagnosed diabetes mellitus, type II (including from January 2013, even if now resolved) had its onset during, or was otherwise related to, the Veteran's active military service, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides? In rendering an opinion, the examiner is requested to consider the lay statements and he or she must provide a comprehensive report including complete rationales for all opinions and conclusions reached. 3. Schedule the Veteran for VA examination by an appropriate medical professional to determine the nature and etiology of any skin disability that may be present. the examiner. The examiner is to conduct all necessary tests and studies. After review of the entire record, to include the September 2019 Board remand, the examiner must respond to the following: a. Identify all of the Veteran's current skin disabilities. b. Then, provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any diagnosed skin condition had its onset during active service or was otherwise related to military service, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides and/or sun exposure? In rendering an opinion, the examiner is requested to consider the lay statements and he or she must provide a comprehensive report including complete rationales for all opinions and conclusions reached. K. Anderson Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A-L Evans, 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.