Citation Nr: 23021189 Decision Date: 04/06/23 Archive Date: 04/06/23 DOCKET NO. 16-56 495 DATE: April 6, 2023 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for right ear hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a thoracic spine disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder injury is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a Carpal tunnel Syndrome (CTS), left upper extremity, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left ear hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served a period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from June 1975 to October 1975 with additional Reserve service. These matters initially came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2022, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Board hearing; a transcript is of record. A July 2022 Board decision remanded these matters for further development. That development is complete in substantial compliance with remand directives. 1. Compensable rating for right ear hearing loss is remanded. 2. Service connection for a thoracic spine disorder is remanded. 3. Service connection for a left shoulder injury is remanded. 4. Service connection for left upper extremity CTS is remanded. 5. Service connection for left ear hearing loss is remanded. These matters were remanded to provide initial VA examinations under McClendon v, Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006), and an examination to determine if his right ear hearing loss had worsened under Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997). The RO was also to develop and identify which dates the Veteran served INDACUTRA versus ACDUTRA. It remains unclear from the record, and the Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), the dates of INACDUTRA. The Veteran was scheduled for VA examinations, but each was cancelled because the Veteran did not report for the examination. However, it is not clear from the claims file when the Veteran was notified of the examinations. A hearing loss VA examination was scheduled for December 23, 2022. However, this letter was received by VA on January 17, 2023. See Audiology Examination Notice, received January 2023. Similarly, a VA examination Notice of Appointment Letter indicates the examination is scheduled for December 23, 2022, was received by VA on January 5, 2023, and the Veteran did not report were each submitted to the VA on or after the date of the examination. Similarly, the letter which indicated the date and time to report, was received by VA either a few days before, or after the examination. One letter in the file indicates that the Veteran consented to the mileage limit for a December 23, 2022, VA examination. See December 2023 Correspondence. It appears to be an internal correspondence Significantly, the record does not contain any letters or other document reflecting that the Veteran was properly notified of his scheduled examinations. The February 2023 Supplemental Statement of the Case simply stated that the Veteran failed to report. No further explanation was provided, and there is no documentation in the record of any specific attempts to contact the Veteran. Correspondence noting a date and time of examinations has been associated with the file on or after the examination date. Thus, it is unclear from the record what steps the RO and/or the VA contracting facility took to contact the Veteran to provide notice of the examinations. Therefore, it is unclear from the record whether the Veteran was timely notified of his examinations. For this reason, the Board finds remand is needed to afford the Veteran an opportunity to attend VA examinations. VA's duty to assist includes the provision of an adequate examination when additional medical evidence is needed to substantiate a claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McClendon, 20 Vet. App. at 81. In light of the lack of documentation regarding scheduling the examinations in this case, the Board finds that VA is obligated to attempt to reschedule the examinations. In doing so, all attempts to contact the Veteran and inform him of the scheduled examinations should be documented in the record. Regarding INACDUTRA, Military Personnel Records (MPR) were added to the claim file in August 2022 which indicate additional training. Thus, INACDUTRA and ACTURA dates should be clarified. The Veteran is reminded that he is to cooperate in the development of his claim. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Further, the Veteran is advised that failure to report for any scheduled examinations, without good cause, may result in the denial of his claims. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of any outstanding VA and private treatment records and associate them with the claim file. If the records are unavailable, or cannot be obtained, a memorandum should be prepared explaining the reason and the attempts to obtain the records. 2. Provide specific dates of INACDUTA, noting MPR records received August 2022. 3. Thereafter, afford the Veteran another opportunity to attend VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of his spinal, left shoulder, left upper extremity CTS, and left ear hearing loss disabilities, and whether they are at least as likely as not related to service. If an examination is conducted, the claim file should be sent to the examiner. 4. Thereafter, afford the Veteran another opportunity to attend VA examination to determine the nature and severity of his right ear hearing loss. 5. Notice of the date and time of all examinations should be sent to the Veteran in advance of the examination and a copy of the notice should be associated with the claims file contemporaneous to when it was sent. All attempts to contact the Veteran and inform him of the scheduled examinations should be documented in the record. A complete rationale should be provided for all opinions. Cory M. Picton Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. McKenzie, Associate 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.