BVA9503313 DOCKET NO. 93-13 355 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for bilateral high frequency hearing loss. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. L. Kennedy, Counsel REMAND The veteran served on active duty from January 1948 to May 1968. This appeal arises from a February 1993 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Montgomery, Alabama, Regional Office (RO). In that decision, the RO denied an increased (compensable) evaluation for the veteran's service- connected bilateral high frequency hearing loss. The appeal in this case was received at the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in June 1993. Subsequently, in August 1993, the Board received a statement from the veteran in which he reported that he had received an examination at the Audiology Clinic at the Biloxi, Mississippi, VA Medical Center on July 12. He indicated that this information was being submitted in support of his claim and that information regarding this examination and the issuance of hearing aids could be obtained from that medical facility. Additional correspondence was received at the Board from the veteran in November 1994 in which the veteran indicated that his hearing was still significantly impaired even with the hearing aids and that verification of the treatment for this disability could again be obtained from the Biloxi VA Medical Center. The VA has a duty to assist a claimant in the development of facts pertinent to his or her claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993). Fulfillment of the duty to assist the appellant includes the procurement and consideration of any relevant VA or other medical records. Ferraro v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 326 (1991). In this case, the Board has determined that the VA outpatient treatment records referenced above and relating to the service- connected disability at issue in this case may be relevant to the veteran's claim of entitlement to an increased evaluation for bilateral high frequency hearing loss. The Court has also held that fulfillment of the VA's duty to assist the veteran includes providing him with a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90, 92 (1990). The Board observes that the veteran has been afforded a VA audiological examination in November 1992 in connection with the current claim. However, in light of the veteran's recent statements which appear to indicate a worsening of his service-connected hearing loss, and in light of the necessity to procure the above-reference records, the Board has determined that on remand the veteran should be afforded another VA audiological examination for rating purposes. The Board notes that in the substantive appeal associated with this case, the veteran expressed his dissatisfaction with the November 1992 VA audiological examination and requested VA re- examination at another facility. The Board, however, has reviewed the report of this examination and finds no indication to suggest that it would be inadequate for rating purposes but for the recent statements by the veteran regarding subsequent treatment at a VA Audiology Clinic which indicate that a more current examination may be necessary. Thus, the RO may determine the appropriate VA medical facility for the scheduling of the VA re-examination. In view of the foregoing, and in order to fully and fairly evaluate the veteran's claim, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The RO should obtain any available treatment records from the Audiology Clinic at the VA Medical Center in Biloxi, Mississippi, dated from July 1993 through the present. 2. The veteran should be afforded a complete VA audiological examination to determine the current nature and extent of the veteran's bilateral hearing loss. The examinations should be conducted in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. All indicated diagnostic tests and procedures should be accomplished. The report should summarize all significant positive findings. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner prior to the examination. 3. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the veteran's claim. If the determination remains adverse to the veteran, he should be provided a supplemental statement of the case which includes a summary of additional evidence and the reasons for the decision. The veteran should be afforded the applicable time to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional evidence and ensure that the veteran is afforded all due process of law. The Board intimates no opinion, either factual or legal, as to the ultimate conclusion warranted in this case. GARY L. GICK 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 deter- mination. 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 action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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).