Citation Nr: 0812288 Decision Date: 04/14/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 06-24 256 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability secondary to the service connected left knee and left ankle disabilities. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. D. Jackson, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from August 1976 to August 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a January 2005 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas, which denied service connection for a right knee disability and tinnitus. A personal hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in March 2008. The issue of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability secondary to the service connected left knee and left ankle disabilities is addressed in the REMAND portion of the decision below and is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. FINDING OF FACT The veteran's bilateral tinnitus is due to acoustic trauma in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW With resolution of reasonable doubt in the appellant's favor, bilateral tinnitus is related to military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1131, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION VCAA The veteran contends that he has tinnitus that had its onset during military service. Because this decision effects a complete grant of the benefit sought on appeal, appellate review of this claim may be conducted without prejudice to the veteran, Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993), and it is unnecessary to analyze the impact of the regulations defining VA's duty to assist. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326. Legal Criteria In general, service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131. In order to establish service connection for the claimed disability, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). The determination as to whether these requirements are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1, 8 (1999). Analysis The veteran's service medical records do not show any complaints, findings or diagnoses regarding tinnitus. In written statements, as well as in testimony given at the hearing before the undersigned VLJ, the veteran reported that his main duties during military service involved repairing air conditioners. He was also trained to work on mechanical generators. He indicated that his exposure to noise was constant when fulfilling his duties. The veteran's DD-214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, indicates that he main duties were utility equipment repair. The Board finds that this veteran's statements and testimony in regard to his noise exposure are credible and consistent with his military service. Further, the veteran has reported continuity of tinnitus since service discharge. Although a VA examiner commented that the veteran's current level and type of hearing loss did not support the claim for service connection, taking into consideration the veteran's inservice history, his statements to the effect that he had tinnitus thereafter, and the subjective nature of tinnitus, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise. With resolution of reasonable doubt in the veteran's favor, service connection for tinnitus, is warranted. ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMAND The veteran claims that service connection is warranted for a right knee disability secondary to service connected left knee and left ankle disabilities. A September 2004 VA examination report includes a diagnosis of bilateral knee chondromalacia. The record does not contain an opinion regarding the etiology of the right knee disability. The Board finds that VA examination and opinion would be helpful in the determination of this case. It also appears that appellant is undergoing routine outpatient care for right knee pathology. The veteran reported at his hearing that he was receiving medical care at "North Central." Current records should be requested for review prior to entry of an opinion. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO/AMC should obtain copies of all outstanding records of treatment received by the veteran for a right knee condition. 2. An appropriate VA examination should be conducted to determine the nature and etiology of the right knee disability. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review in conjunction with the examination and the examiner should acknowledge such review in the examination report. The examiner should provide opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (that is, a probability of 50 percent or better) that the veteran has right knee pathology caused or aggravated by the service connected left knee or left ankle disabilities. See Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 430 (1995). A complete rational for any opinion expressed should be included in the report. 3. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the appellant and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and given the opportunity to respond thereto. 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. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. 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 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2007). ______________________________________________ WAYNE M. BRAEUER Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs