Citation Nr: 1320094 Decision Date: 06/21/13 Archive Date: 07/02/13 DOCKET NO. 12-30 110 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Marenna, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from April 1943 to January 1946. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In his October 2012 substantive appeal (VA Form 9), the Veteran requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. The Veteran was notified of the scheduled hearing in March 2013. The Veteran did not report for the hearing and has not submitted any correspondence in regard to the hearing. Thus, the hearing request is deemed to be withdrawn. Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). 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 The Board finds that the claim must be remanded for additional development. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2010. The VA examiner found that it was more likely than not that the Veteran was not service-connected for tinnitus due to his military service. The VA examiner based the rationale for the opinion, in part, on the Veteran's occupational noise exposure. The VA examiner stated that it is more likely than not that the buzzing sounds, or tinnitus, is related to his civilian occupational noise exposure. The examiner noted that the Veteran worked in a noisy environment for over 38 years and had a history of recreational firearm use. The VA examiner stated that it was more likely than not that the tinnitus is related to his civilian occupational noise exposure and firearm use and not due to his military service. An April 2011 private treatment record noted that the Veteran reported that he was a welder and wore a mask and helmet when welding. He also hunted and reported that he consistently wore hearing protection. He stated that he was exposed to noise in the military. The April 2011 private treatment record indicates that the Veteran wore hearing protection while working as a welder and hunting. This fact was not noted in the December 2010 VA examination report. As the VA examiner's rationale is based in part on the fact that the Veteran was exposed to occupational noise and the examiner did not note that the Veteran wore hearing protection, the Board finds that the rationale for the opinion is inadequate. If VA provides the claimant an examination in accordance with the duty to assist, the examination must be adequate. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). Thus, the Board finds that the claim must be remanded for a new VA opinion. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. Provide the claims file to the VA examiner who conducted the December 2010 VA examination, or if unavailable, a VA clinician with appropriate expertise. The VA clinician should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability) that the Veteran's bilateral tinnitus is related to service, to include exposure to loud noise. The VA clinician must address the April 2011 private treatment record indicating that the Veteran wore a mask and helmet when welding and reported that he consistently wore hearing protection when hunting. If the VA clinician determines that a VA examination or interview of the Veteran is necessary, such should be accomplished. The VA clinician is requested to provide a thorough rationale for any opinion provided. The clinician should review the claims folder and this fact should be noted in the accompanying medical report. If the clinician is unable to provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, the clinician should explain why a definitive opinion cannot be provided. 2. Thereafter, readjudicate the issue on appeal of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. If the benefit sought is not granted, issue a supplemental statement of the case and afford the appellant an appropriate opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board, as warranted. 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). _________________________________________________ MICHAEL MARTIN 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).