Citation Nr: 21042139 Decision Date: 07/12/21 Archive Date: 07/12/21 DOCKET NO. 16-09 670 DATE: July 12, 2021 REMANDED Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for right ear hearing loss remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1980 to December 1982. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an August 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) located in St. Petersburg, Florida. In June 2019, the Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. These matters were previously before the Board in February 2020, at which time they were remanded for further development of the record. 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for right ear hearing loss remanded. Although the Board regrets the delay, the above-captioned issues must be remanded for additional evidentiary development to ensure there is a complete record upon which to decide the claims. Specifically, the record contains outstanding VA audiometric data relevant to the Veteran's claims for service connection and an increased rating. In this regard, in February 2020, the Board remanded the claims to obtain relevant, outstanding VA treatment records from the VAMC in Orlando, dated from 2009 to the present. These records were only partially obtained in February 2020. This is because the VA audiograms/audiometry results associated with VA audiological evaluations referenced therein have not been associated with the claims file. For example, VA Audiology Notes reflect that the Veteran underwent audiologic evaluations in April 2016 and August 2019 and that the full audiometry results for those evaluations were available under the "audiogram display module under the tools menu" and in the "ROES 3 audiogram display mode," respectively. Unfortunately, the full audiometry results, including the recorded puretone thresholds, are not currently visible or available in the record. Accordingly, a remand is required so that the RO may obtain these outstanding audiograms and associate them with the claims file for evidentiary consideration. Additionally, while the August 2019 VA Audiology Note references speech recognition scores for the Veteran's audiology evaluations (i.e., 92 percent in the left ear and 88 percent in the right ear), it is unclear whether the scores were the result of a controlled speech discrimination test that utilized the Maryland CNC word list. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a). Therefore, upon remand, the RO is requested to clarify whether the Maryland CNC test was used for both the April 2016 and August 2019 audiology evaluations for treatment purposes. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file a copy of the April 2016 and August 2019 VA audiograms/audiometry results referenced in the Veteran's VA Audiology Note treatment records. The evidence indicates that these audiograms can be found/ are viewable under the "audiogram display module under the tools menu" and in the "ROES 3 audiogram display mode," respectively. If any requested records are not available, the record should be annotated to reflect such, and the Veteran notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. Then, seek clarification, such as from the VA facility/treating audiologists if possible, whether the speech discrimination testing conducted at the April 2016 and August 2019 audiology treatment evaluations were performed using the Maryland CNC word list. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the Veteran's claims should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. [SIGNATURE ON NEXT PAGE] JONATHAN B. KRAMER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Hoeft 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.