Citation Nr: 0000758 Decision Date: 01/11/00 Archive Date: 01/27/00 DOCKET NO. 94-48 311A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: John P. Frantz, Attorney WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and spouse INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from January 1943 to April 1946. This appeal arose from a September 1993 rating decision denying the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss. On August 11, 1998, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) issued a decision finding that the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss was not well- grounded. The veteran appealed the Board's 1998 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (known as the United States Court of Veterans Appeals prior to March 1, 1999) (hereinafter, the Court). By order dated July 20, 1999, the Court vacated the Board's decision and remanded the matter to the Board for compliance with the instructions in the joint motion for remand. Copies of the Court's order and the joint motion for remand are included in the veteran's claims file. FINDING OF FACT The claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is plausible. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Board finds that the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). In light of the testimony offered by the veteran and his spouse during the April 1995 hearing on appeal with respect to the condition of his hearing loss during service and after service, the April 1998 opinion by a VA audiologist and the November 1999 statements from fellow Kelvinator Corporation employee Nelson Van Dam, and Clinic Director for the Hearing and Speech Clinic at Gallaudet University Elena M. Kleifges, the Board concludes that the veteran has met the threshold of submitting a well-grounded claim. Accordingly, VA must assist him in developing facts pertinent to that claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). ORDER Evidence of a well-grounded claim of service connection for bilateral hearing loss has been submitted. To this extent the appeal is granted. REMAND In the aforementioned joint motion for remand it was indicated that, should the Board find the veteran's claim to be well-grounded, the claim should be remanded to the Regional Office (RO) as the April 1998 VA opinion did not meet the directives set forth in the Board's 1997 remand order. Pursuant to the Court order, the veteran's claim is being REMANDED to the originating agency to take the following action as quickly as practicable: 1. The RO should schedule the veteran for a VA examination by an otologist, including an interview of the veteran to secure a complete history of acoustic trauma in service, in order to clarify the nature of the relationship, if any, between the veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and any acoustic trauma he may have experienced in service. The otologist is requested to proffer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the veteran's current hearing loss is related to his noise exposure in service. All necessary tests and studies should be accomplished. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided. The claims file, including a copy of this REMAND, should be made available to the examiner before the examination, for proper review of the medical history. The examination report should reflect whether such a review of the claims file was made. Prior to the examination, the RO must inform the veteran, in writing, of all consequences of his failure to report for the examination in order that he may make an informed decision regarding his participation in said examination. 2. Upon completion of the above, the RO should adjudicate the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, both the veteran and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case and afforded the appropriate opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion, either legal or factual, as to the ultimate outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is otherwise notified. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 1999) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44- 8.45 and 38.02-38.03. HILARY L. GOODMAN Acting Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals