Citation Nr: 1322756 Decision Date: 07/17/13 Archive Date: 07/24/13 DOCKET NO. 11-07 915 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Kristi L. Gunn, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1976 to May 1980. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2010 rating decision of the St. Louis, Missouri, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board has reviewed the contents of the Veteran's Virtual VA file and found no medical or other evidence pertinent to this appeal that is not in her claims file. 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 Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for tinnitus because it was incurred during his active military service. In March 2010, the Veteran was afforded a VA audiometric examination. It was noted that the Veteran reported a history of unprotected exposure to hazardous military noise while serving as a military policeman as well as civilian noise exposure while serving as a St. Louis County policeman. With regards to tinnitus, the VA examiner reported that the Veteran stated that he experiences mild, bilateral, constant tonal tinnitus of "unknown onset and etiology." After review of audiological testing results and of the claims file, the VA examiner did not provide an etiological opinion regarding tinnitus because the Veteran did not associate his tinnitus with the military, and while the record revealed several medical consultations, tinnitus was not one of the complaints. See the March 2010 VA examination report. In the notice of disagreement (NOD) dated June 2010, the Veteran's representative indicated that the Veteran informed the March 2010 VA examiner at the time of his examination that his tinnitus begin in service. The Veteran's representative requested that exposure to acoustic trauma be conceded because the Veteran served in the military as a military policeman with extensive firearm training without the benefit of ear protection. The Veteran's representative indicated that because the VA examiner failed to consider the claimed etiology of the Veteran's tinnitus an additional VA examination is warranted. The Board finds that the March 2010 VA examination report is inadequate because it appears that the March 2010 VA examiner failed to consider the Veteran's assertion of having incurred tinnitus in serving while working as a military policeman. Additionally, since the March 2010 VA examination, the RO has now conceded noise exposure due to his duties as a military policeman. See the March 2011 Statement of the Case (SOC). Because VA undertook to provide an examination, the Board must ensure that such an examination is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007) (noting that a medical opinion must describe the disability in sufficient detail so the Board can make a fully informed evaluation of the disability). The RO/AMC should arrange for the Veteran's claims file to be reviewed by the VA audiologist who conducted the March 2010 VA examination for tinnitus and prepared the medical opinion (or a suitable substitute if that VA physician is unavailable) for the purpose of preparing an addendum opinion. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Arrange for the Veteran's claims file, including a copy of this remand, to be reviewed by the VA examiner who prepared the March 2010 VA examination report (or a substitute if that VA examiner is unavailable) for the purpose of preparing an addendum to the examination report regarding the etiology of the Veteran's tinnitus. The examination report should reflect that such review has been accomplished. The VA examiner should note that exposure to acoustic trauma while serving as a military policeman during service has been conceded. See the March 2011 SOC. After a review of the entire evidence of record, the examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is more likely than not (i.e., probability greater than 50 percent), at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of 50 percent), or less likely than not (i.e., probability less than 50 percent) that the Veteran has tinnitus that had its onset in service or is in any way related to the Veteran's active service. A rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. If an opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the VA physician should explain why it would be speculative to respond. If an additional clinical evaluation is necessary to render the requested information, then that opportunity should be made available. 2. Thereafter, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and afforded the appropriate time period within which to respond thereto. 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ KELLI A. KORDICH Acting 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).