Citation Nr: 0726723 Decision Date: 08/27/07 Archive Date: 09/04/07 DOCKET NO. 05-00 157 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Georgia Department of Veterans Services WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Van Stewart, Associate Counsel REMAND The veteran had active military service from January 1956 to October 1957. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of August and September 2003 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia. In response to his claim of service connection for hearing loss, the veteran was afforded an audiological evaluation, given in June 2004. Because no opinion was provided by the examiner as to whether the veteran's hearing loss was etiologically related to his military service, another audiological evaluation was given in August 2004. The report of the August 2004 audiological evaluation noted that the veteran's medical records had been requested, but could not be made available for review. As a consequence, the audiologist stated that it was not possible to provide a nexus opinion without a review of the veteran's service medical records (SMRs). Inexplicably, this case was then certified to the Board without another examination being ordered to provide a nexus opinion, this time with benefit of review of the veteran's medical records. The Board will therefore remand in order that another audiological evaluation be conducted with the veteran's complete medical records in hand, and a nexus opinion provided. Accordingly, the veteran's case is REMANDED to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all health care providers, VA and private, who may possess additional records pertinent to his hearing loss claim. The veteran should specifically be asked to identify any post-service medical treatment that is related to his hearing. With any necessary authorization from the veteran, the RO should attempt to obtain and associate with the claims file any pertinent medical records identified by the veteran that have not been secured previously. If the RO is unsuccessful in obtaining any medical records identified by the veteran, it should inform him and his representative of this and ask them to provide a copy of additional medical records they may have obtained on their own that have not been secured previously. The veteran should be asked to submit any pertinent information or evidence that he may have in his possession. 2. The AOJ should then arrange for the veteran to undergo a VA audiological evaluation by an audiologist or a physician with appropriate expertise to determine the current level of hearing loss and to provide a nexus opinion as to causation or aggravation of hearing loss in service. Ask the examiner to opine - based on review of the evidence of record and his examination of the veteran, whether any current hearing loss is more likely than not (i.e., probability greater than 50 percent), at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of approximately 50 percent), or less likely than not (i.e., probability less than 50 percent) related to military service. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. All indicated tests should be conducted and those reports should be incorporated into the examination and associated with the claims file. The veteran's claims file, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination. The AOJ should ensure that the examination report complies with this remand and the questions presented in the AOJ's examination request, especially with respect to the instructions to provide medical opinions on causation and aggravation. If the report is insufficient, it should be returned to the examiner for necessary corrective action, as appropriate. The veteran should be advised that failure to appear for an examination as requested, and without good cause, could adversely affect his claim, to include denial. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (2006). 3. After undertaking any other development deemed appropriate, the AOJ should consider the issues on appeal in light of all information or evidence received. If any benefit sought is not granted, the veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded an opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. After expiration of any applicable period allowed for response, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if in order. By this remand, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is notified by the AOJ. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded to the AOJ. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This case must be afforded expeditious treatment by the AOJ. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board or by the Court for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2007). ________________________________ ROBERT E. SULLIVAN Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2006).