13-30 340, 13-30 340

Veteran served on active duty 1956–1959 and 1961–1962 and was granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss in a Nov 2010 RO decision with a non‑compensable rating.
Veteran testified in Nov 2016 hearing, but the recording failed; he requested and was granted a second hearing in Sept 2017 before a different Veterans Law Judge.
At the Sept 2017 hearing the Veteran contended his hearing worsened since the last VA exam in March 2013 and reported private audiology treatment at Jamaica Plain and submitted a Dec 2016 VA record.
The claims file lacks post‑April 2010 VA treatment records and the alleged private treatment records were not associated with the file.
Board found the record inadequate to determine current severity and remanded for development, including obtaining records, new examination, and opportunity for lay statements; case was returned to the AOJ for readjudication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a compensable rating is warranted for bilateral hearing loss	Veteran: hearing has worsened since March 2013 exam; private/VA records support increased severity	VA/RO: previously granted service connection but assigned non‑compensable rating based on existing record	Remand for new VA exam to assess current severity and for collection of outstanding VA and private records, plus lay statements; then readjudicate
Whether the record is adequate for rating determination	Veteran: current evidence and testimony show deterioration and existence of additional treatment records	VA/RO: relies on existing file (which lacks post‑2010 VA records and private records)	Record inadequate; AOJ must obtain outstanding records and schedule exam
Whether Veteran is entitled to submit additional evidence post‑remand	Veteran sought to supply private records and testimony	Implicitly, VA must allow submission during development	Board ordered notice to Veteran that he may submit lay statements and allowed time to do so
Whether a panel hearing was required after a technical failure of the first hearing	Veteran requested another hearing; two different VLJs held hearings	VA regulation: different VLJs normally trigger panel, but exception for equipment failure	Board treated original (unrecorded) hearing as if it did not exist; panel not required when prior hearing unrecorded due to equipment failure

Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997) (remand for VA examination required when record insufficient to decide claim)
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999) (veteran may submit additional evidence and argument after Board remand)