BVA9503084 
DOCKET NO.  93-11 114     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in No. Little
Rock, Arkansas

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Tresa Schlecht, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The appellant had active service from April 1943 to February
1946.  This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) on appeal from an October 1991 rating decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in North
Little Rock, Arkansas, which denied entitlement to service
connection for hearing loss.

REMAND

The appellant contends that she has a hearing loss as a result of
a concussion sustained in a jeep accident which occurred in May
1944.  The appellant contends that diagnosis of a hearing loss as
the result of a concussion may be delayed for many years.  In
1991, the appellant was requested to submit evidence of her
recent treatment for her disability, and she did submit such
evidence.  However, because the appellant has not been
specifically requested to submit evidence regarding her
disability prior to 1991, and she has alleged treatment in 1956
at the San Francisco Speech and Hearing Clinic (Personal hearing
in September 1993) and in 1969 for surgery (VA examination in
July 1987), the Board is of the opinion that further evidentiary
development is required.  See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 155
(1993).  Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the
following development:

1.  The RO should contact the appellant to
request the names and addresses of any
medical care providers who may have treated
her since service for a hearing disability
or other ear disorder, including
audiologists or other providers who may
have fitted the appellant with hearing
aids, and should request the appellant to
provide as much information as possible
regarding treatment most proximate to
service.  The appellant should be asked
whether any employment medical records
relevant to her ear conditions and hearing
loss exist and she should provide the name
of the medical facility at which her ear
surgery was performed in 1969.  The RO
should request that the appellant complete
and submit appropriate consent so that VA
may obtain any such medical or employment
records.

2.  The RO should then obtain copies of
treatment records from the providers named
by the appellant.  Because she was married
in 1969, the records prior to 1969 should
be sought under her previous last name,
Smith, and records for 1969 should be
sought under her current and previous
names.  Records should be obtained from the
San Francisco Speech and Hearing Clinic
from 1956 to 1960.  All records obtained
should be associated with the claims
folder.

When the development described above has been accomplished, the
case should be reviewed by the RO.  If the benefit sought is not
granted, the appellant and her representative should be provided
with a supplemental statement of the case which addresses the
claim on the merits.  The appellant and her representative should
have an opportunity to respond to the supplemental statement of
the case.  Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board,
if in order.  The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate
outcome of this case.  The appellant need take no action unless
otherwise notified.

          HOLLY E. MOEHLMANN
          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).