BVA9505816 
DOCKET NO.  91-38 758     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Los Angeles,
California

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

2.  Entitlement to an increased evaluation for arteriosclerotic
heart disease with hypertension, currently evaluated as 30
percent disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

T. S. Kelly, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active military service from September 1935 to
September 1955, when he retired.

In an August 1992 letter, the veteran appears to raise the issue
of entitlement to service connection for osteoarthritis.  It
further appears that the veteran is requesting service connection
for renal insufficiency, as evidenced by a November 1992 letter
received at the Board from Congressman Mervyn M. Dymally's
office.  The veteran also appears to have raised the issue of
entitlement to service connection for gout in a May 1994 letter.
It further appears that the veteran raised the issues of
entitlement to service connection for headaches, dizziness, and
other effects resulting from his present medications in a June
1994 letter.  As these matters are not properly before the Board,
they are referred to the RO for further development.  In
addition, on referral to another section of the Board, the issue
of entitlement to reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses
has been deferred.

REMAND

 The veteran underwent a Department of Veterans Affairs
(hereinafter, VA) audiological examination in February 1994.
Following the audiological examination, the examiner rendered an
opinion that none of the medications that the veteran was taking
for his arteriosclerotic heart disease were known to cause direct
damage to the inner ears.  The examiner further noted: "Although
arteriolosclerotic heart disease can cause a narrowing of the
small arteries including the cochlear divisions of the internal
carotid artery by the generalized arteriolosclerotic heart
disease.  I believe that this can contribute to his hearing
loss."

In accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (1994), a disability which
is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected
disease or injury shall be service connected.  While the VA
examiner indicated that the veteran's arteriolosclerotic heart
disease could contribute to his hearing loss, he did not indicate
the specific cause or causes of the veteran's present day
sensorineural hearing loss.  As such, the Board is of the opinion
that additional development is in order.

To ensure that the 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
supply the names, dates, and places of any
individuals or treatment facilities that have
treated him for the disabilities presently on
appeal subsequent to February 1994.  After
securing the necessary release, the RO should
obtain these records.

2.  Thereafter, the veteran should be
scheduled for a special VA otolaryngologic
examination to determine the etiology of his
bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.  If
further audiometric studies are indicated,
they should be done.  All pertinent symptoms
and findings should be reported in detail.
The examiner should specifically comment as to
whether the veteran's arteriosclerotic heart
disease caused his current sensorineural
hearing loss or whether his hearing loss is
more likely due to other factors.  The
veteran's claims folder must be available to,
and reviewed by, the examiner prior to the
examination.

The RO should then review the case in light of any additional
data obtained.  If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, a
supplemental statement of the case should be furnished to the
veteran and his representative.  They should be afforded a
reasonable period of time to respond.  Thereafter, the case
should be returned to the Board for further appellate
consideration.  By this remand, the Board intimates no opinion as
to the ultimate outcome of this case.

                                             (CONTINUED ON NEXT
PAGE)

          GEORGE R. SENYK
          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).