BVA9505312 DOCKET NO. 93-15 279 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boise, Idaho THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for left ear hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Stephen LaMarche, Agent WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and S. LaMarche ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James R. Siegel, Counsel REMAND The veteran served on active duty from March 1942 to September 1945. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from a December 1991 rating decision of the Boise, Idaho Regional Office (RO) which denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to an increased evaluation for hearing loss in the left ear, rated zero percent since 1945. The initial question before the Board is whether the veteran has submitted a well-grounded claim as required by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court) has held that a well-grounded claim is one which is plausible or capable of substantiation. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). In this case, the veteran's evidentiary assertions, including his testimony at a hearing in June 1993, concerning the severity of the hearing loss in his left ear that are within the competence of a lay party to report, are sufficient to conclude that his claim is well grounded. Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 629 (1992); Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992), King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19 (1993). The record discloses that the veteran has been granted service connection for a hearing loss only in his left ear. He has asserted that his hearing acuity has deteriorated recently. In this regard, the Board notes that a private audiometric test, conducted in June 1993, appears to confirm the veteran's claim that his hearing acuity has diminished somewhat. The 1993 test results from the Canyon Hearing Aid Center, Nampa, Idaho, reveal reportedly a "profound hearing loss in both ears" and a "97 %" loss in the left ear. However, it is not evident that all appropriate tests were performed on that occasion for VA disability evaluation purposes. The Board also notes that the veteran testified at his hearing in June 1993 that he had been receiving treatment at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical facility in Boise, Idaho, since August 1991. It is not clear that all the treatment records pertaining to his hearing loss have been associated with the claims folder. The 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). The Court has held that the duty to assist the veteran in obtaining and developing available facts and evidence to support his claim includes obtaining an adequate VA examination. This duty is neither optional nor discretionary. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). This duty also includes providing additional VA examinations by a specialist when recommended. Hyder v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221 (1991). The fulfillment of the statutory duty to assist includes conducting a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination, one which takes into account the records of prior medical treatment, so that the evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one. Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121, 124 (1991). The Court has held that where the veteran claims that a disability is worse than when originally rated, and the available evidence is too old to adequately evaluate the current state of the condition, the VA must provide a new examination. Olson v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 480, 482 (1992), citing Proscelle, 2 Vet.App. at 632. Here, the most recent VA audiometric examination was conducted in October 1991, and the private tests in 1993 suggest that the veteran's hearing loss may have increased in severity. Under the applicable regulations, a VA examination will be authorized where there is a possibility of a valid claim, and a reexamination may be required when the evidence indicates there has been a material change in the disability. 38 C.F.R.§§ 3.326(a), 3.327(a) (1994). Under the circumstances of this case, the Board finds that additional development of the record is required. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for action as follows: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he furnish the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment of all medical providers from whom he has received treatment for his hearing loss since 1991. After securing the proper authorization forms for release of information, the RO should obtain for the record copies of all treatment records referred to by the veteran, including complete records of treatment from the VA medical facility in Boise and any not already of record from the Canyon Hearing Aid Center. 2. The veteran should then be afforded another VA audiological evaluation and consultation to determine the nature and extent of his hearing loss. All necessary tests should be performed. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner in conjunction with the current examination. Following completion of the above, the RO should review the evidence and determine whether the veteran's claim for an increased rating may now be granted. If not, he and his representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case, and they should be provided an opportunity to respond thereto. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. J. F. GOUGH 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) (1994).