Citation Nr: 22016480 Decision Date: 03/22/22 Archive Date: 03/22/22 DOCKET NO. 19-07 249 DATE: March 22, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1953 to October 1957 and from November 1962 to October 1964. This matter comes before the Board of Veteran's Appeals (Board) from an August 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). As a threshold matter it is observed the Veteran requested a hearing in his VA Form 9, Appeal to the Board. Unfortunately, the Veteran did not attend the scheduled hearing, nor was good cause provided for missing the scheduled hearing. As such, the Board finds the hearing request has been withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704. Additionally, as it will be explained in more detail below, the matters on appeal require development prior to adjudication. Thus, if following completion of the requested development, the matters remain on appellate status in the legacy system and return to the Board, the Veteran may request a new opportunity to provide testimony before a Veterans Law Judge at that time if he desires. Quinn v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 284 (2019). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran's post-service medical records suggest he has been diagnosed with hearing loss. See VA medical records for December 2018 and January 2019, noting use of hearing aids. The extent of the Veteran's hearing loss is not reflected in the available records, as there are no objective auditory threshold findings nor speech discrimination scores available. Nonetheless, the use of hearing aids suggests a current hearing loss disability for VA purposes may exist. Additionally, the records note that an audiology assessment would be completed, but the results of such assessment, to include audiometric findings if such were made, are not of record. See VA medical records for December 2018. This evidence suggests there may be outstanding VA medical records, to include an audiology assessment in or around December 2018, that must be obtained and associated with the claims file prior to adjudication. VA has a duty to assist claimants to obtain evidence needed to substantiate a claim, including making reasonable efforts to obtain relevant private medical records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(1). Here, the claims file reveals there may be outstanding VA medical records and/or private medical records relevant to the matters on appeal. As such, the matters must be remanded for these records to be obtained. Furthermore, as the matters need to be remanded for development, the Board finds the Veteran should be provided a new opportunity to be examined regarding his claims. The claims file suggests the Veteran did not report for a scheduled examination concerning his claims. See Exam Scheduling Request Contention Cancellation, associated with the claims file in January 2019. It is unclear from the record the actual date the examination had been scheduled and/or whether the Veteran was informed of the scheduled examination. Moreover, the record contains various unsuccessful attempts to contact the Veteran by phone throughout the appellate period. See VA Form 27-0820 of February 2019, and May 2020. As the Board is unable to determine whether the Veteran was notified of the scheduled examination concerning his pending appeal, the Board finds that upon remand, an additional opportunity for examination must be provided to the Veteran. The Veteran is advised, however, that it is his obligation to cooperate with VA's efforts to obtain the evidence necessary to substantiate his claim, to include participating fully and faithfully in the examination process. The Veteran is advised that his failure to report for and fully cooperate in the scheduled examination without good cause will result in his claim being rated on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.326, 3.655. While VA has a statutory duty to assist the Veteran in obtaining evidence to substantiate her claims, the duty to assist is not a one-way street. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain outstanding VA medical records, to include any auditory examination reports or results administered to the Veteran by VA during the pendency of the appeal. 2. Invite the Veteran to identify any private providers that may have treated or examined him for his claimed conditions during the pendency of the appeal and invite him to submit the necessary authorizations or releases for VA to obtain such records. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a new audiological examination concerning his claimed disabilities and obtain a medical opinion addressing the likely etiology of the claimed conditions. (Continued on the next page) Notice to the Veteran regarding the scheduled examination must be clearly documented in the claims file. The AOJ should notify the Veteran that it is his responsibility to report for any scheduled VA examination and to cooperate in the development of the claim, and that the consequences for failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655. In the event that the Veteran does not report for the scheduled VA examination, documentation must be obtained which shows that notice scheduling the examination was sent to the Veteran's last known address. 4. After completing the above requested actions, and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, furnish to the Veteran and his representative an appropriate supplemental statement of the case that includes clear reasons and bases for all determinations, and afford them the appropriate time period for response before the claims file is returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Gonzalez-Maldonado 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.