BVA9503349 DOCKET NO. 93-1- 324 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for hemorrhoids. 2. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of measles. 3. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss with tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C.A. Skow, Associate Counsel REMAND The appellant served on active duty from September 1951 to September 1953. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from an April 1991 rating decision of the St. Petersburg, Florida, Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO). The appellant contends that he currently suffers bilateral hearing loss with tinnitus as a result of either artillery fire exposure or measles during service. He further contends that he currently suffers from a hemorrhoid condition which had its onset in service. The evidence before the Board includes service medical records, a private audiological report dated February 1991, lay statements dated January and February 1992, a private audiological statement dated January 1992, sworn testimony from a personal hearing conducted in June 1992, and a letter from the appellant dated November 1992. After carefully reviewing this evidence, the Board finds no objective evidence of a present hemorrhoid disorder or any residual disability attributable to measles. In addition, the Board finds that the audiological evidence of record is inadequate to determine the presence of a hearing loss disability for VA purposes. The Board notes that severe bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, more pronounced in the right ear, was shown on a private audiological examination in February 1991, and that, in a letter dated November 1992, the appellant indicated that he would submit a medical statement from Samuel Hannah, M.D., "an eminent physician and an expert on hearing loss" to further establish the presence of a hearing loss disability. However, neither a medical statement nor audiological reports have been received from Dr. Hannah, and the Board believes that evidence of hearing loss alone is not the equivalent of a hearing loss disability for service connection purposes under pertinent VA regulations. Unlike other service connection cases, the term hearing loss disability is currently defined by VA regulation. Under 38 C.F.R. §3.385 (1993), service connection will not be granted where hearing status satisfies pure tone and speech recognition criteria. The regulation provides as follows: Hearing status shall not be considered service-connected when the thresholds for the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz are all less than 40 decibels; the thresholds for at least three of these frequencies are 25 decibels or less; and speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are 94 percent or better. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (1993). After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board finds that the audiological evidence of record is inadequate to determine the appellant's hearing status for VA purposes. As such, the Board concludes that the VA has not fully complied with its duty to assist. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); and Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). Accordingly, the issues currently before the Board are REMANDED to VARO for the following action: 1. The appellant should be afforded a VA audiological examination to determine puretone thresholds for the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz, and speech recognition using the Maryland CNC Test; the presence of tinnitus should also be ascertained. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review before the examination. After reviewing the previous audiological evaluations of record, the certified audiologist should reconcile any inconsistent findings of record with the results indicated on the current audiological evaluation. In addition, the certified audiologist should opine on whether or not there is an etiological relationship between the episode of measles in service and the subsequent onset of hearing loss. 2. VARO should obtain from the appellant the correct mailing address for Dr. Samuel Hannah, referred to by the appellant in a statement dated November 1992. After securing the necessary release, VARO should attempt to obtain all the treatment records of Dr. Hannah pertaining to the appellant's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. 3. The appellant should be afforded a VA examination to determine whether or not the appellant has hemorrhoids, a rectal fissure, or some other rectal disorder. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review before the examination. If hemorrhoids or some other rectal disorder is shown, the examiner should opine on whether or not it is etiologically related to the rectal fissure noted in the appellant's service medical records. 4. After the development requested above has been completed to the extent possible, VARO should again review the record. If any benefit sought on appeal, for which a notice of disagreement has been filed, remains denied, the appellant and representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto. C.P. RUSSELL Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. 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) (1993).