Citation Nr: 22012196 Decision Date: 03/02/22 Archive Date: 03/02/22 DOCKET NO. 17-30 847 DATE: March 2, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating prior to September 22, 2021, for bilateral hearing loss and 10 percent thereafter is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. See 38U.S.C. §5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The Veteran had active military service from January 1978 to April 1978 and from July 1982 to June 2001. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from the May 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran appeared at an October 2019 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. This matter was previously before the Board in August 2021 and was remanded for further development. Entitlement to a compensable rating prior to September 22, 2021, for bilateral hearing loss and 10 percent thereafter is remanded. As noted above, this matter was previously before the Board in August 2021 and was remanded for the Veteran to undergo another VA examination to determine the current severity of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. Subsequently, in October 2021, the Veteran underwent a VA hearing loss examination. In a January 2022 correspondence by the Veteran and February 2022 correspondence from the Veteran's representative, it is argued that the Veteran's October 2021 VA hearing loss examination was inadequate. Specifically, they argue that the examiner did not take into account all the manifestations and functional impairment and loss related to the Veteran's service connected bilateral hearing loss. The Board notes that on the October 2021 VA examination report, the examiner only stated that the Veteran's functional impairment was that he had to quit his job due to his hearing loss. However, the Veteran has implied that he has other functional impairments that were not inquired upon or documented at his VA examination and therefore the examination does not adequately portray the severity of his service-connected condition. In Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447, 455 (2007), the Court held that, relevant to VA audiological examinations, in addition to dictating objective test results, a VA audiologist must fully describe the functional effects caused by a hearing disability in his or her final report. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded the opportunity to undergo another VA examination to determine the current severity of his bilateral hearing loss. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of his service connected bilateral hearing loss. The examination should include all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner. The examiner should report all manifestations and functional impairments related to the service connected disability. All opinions provided must be thoroughly explained and an adequate rationale for any conclusions reached must be provided. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the medical professional should state and explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. 2. Following completion of the above, and a review of any additional evidence received, the RO should also undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion which considers any newly received evidence. 3. Thereafter, the RO should refer the claim to the Director of Compensation and Pension for extra-schedular consideration. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Mountford, 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.