BVA9500064 DOCKET NO. 93-05 396 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P. M. Lynch, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran's active military service extended from March 1970 to December 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 1990 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. That rating decision, in part, denied entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. REMAND The veteran contends that the RO committed error in denying his claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. Specifically, he avers that he has had bilateral hearing loss since his discharge from service and that it is a result of his exposure to loud noise during service. At the personal hearing held at the RO in May 1992, the veteran testified that for the last several months of active service, he was assigned to the Ships Force Overhaul Maintenance System (SFOMS). His duties included stripping tile and terrazzo using deck grinders and air chisels for extended periods of time. Treatment notes dated in October 1972 confirm that he had been doing repair work since April 1972. The veteran further stated that he had not been exposed to any loud noises since his discharge from service. He did state, however, that he has been susceptible to ear infections. In addition, the veteran testified that shortly after his discharge from service, he underwent an employment physical. He claimed that the examiner informed him that he had a hearing loss over a broad spectrum which was more pronounced at high frequencies. He maintained that he underwent no other audiometric tests until a VA examination in July 1990. The veteran's attempts to obtain these medical records have been unsuccessful. VA's duty to assist includes obtaining both civilian and government records. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). This duty is neither optional nor discretionary. See Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). The diagnosis reported during the veteran's employment physical is critical in that it was rendered immediately following service. Therefore, the RO should made further attempts to obtain any medical records from the veteran's previous employer or the facility where the reported examination was conducted. In July 1990, the veteran underwent a VA audiological examination. The examiner diagnosed a mild to moderate bilateral hearing loss through 4000 hertz. The test results met the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (1993). Although a hearing loss is documented in this report, the report does not reveal the cause of the hearing loss nor are there any physician's statements or opinions of record regarding the cause of the hearing loss. VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). This duty includes obtaining additional medical evidence where appropriate. See Sokowski v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 75 (1991); Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). In light of the evidence of record, we find that it be would appropriate to afford the veteran a special VA examination to determine the cause, nature and extent of his bilateral hearing loss. To ensure that VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development: 1. The RO should request that the veteran provide the names and addresses of all hospitals and health care providers that have treated him for any ear disorders, including infections, since his discharge from service. 2. The RO should request that the veteran furnish the names and addresses of any employers that required him to undergo employment physicals. The veteran should also be requested to provide the names and addresses of any health care providers that conducted such physicals. 3. After securing the necessary releases, the RO should make arrangements to obtain copies of all treatment records from all hospitals and health care providers listed by the veteran. If any records are not available, that fact should be annotated in the claims folder. 4. The RO should request that the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) review the veteran's service personnel records to ascertain whether he was assigned to the SFOMS, and if so, if there is any reference to the type of work he performed. 5. Following the above, the veteran should be afforded another audiological examination or an examination by a VA physician specializing in ear disorders. The examiner should be requested to review all the records on file, particularly those reflecting examinations in service, and immediately thereafter and express an opinion as to the probability that any current hearing loss is the result of acoustic trauma during service, or whether it is more properly attributable to intercurrent causes, such as infection, disease or post service acoustic trauma. In particular, the examiner should furnish an opinion as to whether any preexisting hearing loss became worse in service. A copy of this remand and the claims folder must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner prior to the examination. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for all conclusions reached. 6. The RO should review the examination report and determine if it is adequate for rating purposes and in full compliance with this Remand. If not, the report should be returned to the examiner for corrective action. Following completion of these actions and, if the decision remains unfavorable, the veteran and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded a reasonable period of time in which to respond. Thereafter, in accordance with the current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for completion of appellate review. No action is required of the veteran until further notice is issued. JOAQUIN AGUAYO-PERELES 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).