Citation Nr: 1320068 Decision Date: 06/21/13 Archive Date: 07/02/13 DOCKET NO. 11-00 319 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Indianapolis, Indiana THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Young, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from February 1975 to February 1979. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2009 rating decision by the Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Indianapolis, Indiana. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND In November 2009 the Veteran was afforded a VA audiological examination in connection with his current service connection claim for tinnitus; however, the Board finds that examination was inadequate. If VA provides the claimant an examination in accordance with a duty to assist, the examination must be adequate. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). The medical examiner indicated that the Veteran's tinnitus is less likely than not caused by and/or the result of acoustic trauma during military service; however, the rationale provided by the examiner rests on the Veteran's "normal hearing sensitivity at discharge in 1979," that the Veteran's current hearing thresholds are "within normal limits bilaterally, thirty years after discharge from military service," and the service treatment records were negative for complaints of tinnitus. However, the Veteran does not contend that his tinnitus symptoms began during active service, rather that the ringing in his ears "might be from working around jet engines when [he] was in the Navy." He has made various claims as to when tinnitus began. In his claim, the Veteran asserted that his tinnitus manifested in February 1983. See July 2009 Claim. The VA examiner noted the Veteran's report that the onset of tinnitus was approximately one year after he was discharged from military service. Yet in December 2010, the Veteran also asserted that he was aware of "this condition within 30 days after discharge." See Veteran's Form 9. The VA examiner denoted the Veteran's military, occupational, and or recreational noise exposure history in the examination report, but did not address the Veteran's statements regarding the onset of tinnitus in the medical opinion and rationale provided. Consequently, an addendum medical opinion is necessary. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Return the claims folder to the November 2009 examiner to obtain an addendum opinion regarding the Veteran's tinnitus disability. If the November 2009 examiner is not available or determines that the requested opinion cannot be provided without a new examination, the Veteran should be accorded a new VA examination by another medical professional. The Veteran's claims file, including a copy of this Remand, must be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the opinion. The examiner is requested to review the record, and offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of approximately 50 percent), that the Veteran's tinnitus disability had its clinical onset in service or is otherwise related to active duty, to include exposure to jet engines. In answering this question, the examiner should consider the Veteran's statements that he first became aware of tinnitus in March 1979 and that it began approximately one year after service. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinion offered. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner should provide an explanation as to why this is so and note what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. 2. Then, readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not fully granted, issue a supplemental statement of the case before returning to the Board, if otherwise in order. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ M. E. LARKIN Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 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) (2012).