Citation Nr: 18146310
Decision Date: 11/01/18	Archive Date: 10/31/18

DOCKET NO. 14-43 328
DATE:	November 1, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from October 1966 and September 1970.
This appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) is from a December 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).
1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded.
On August 2012 VA examination, the audiologist offered an unfavorable opinion concerning the etiology of the Veteran’s tinnitus that is inadequate to decide the claim.  The audiologist noted that the claims file was not made available for review.  This alone is not sufficient to find the opinion inadequate particularly if the Veteran provides a history that is consistent with the record.  However, in this case the file contains pertinent evidence that was not relayed to the clinician.  See December 2003 Medical Treatment Record – Government Facility.  Furthermore, the Veteran’s representative makes an argument in the October 2018 Appellant Brief that the examiner should have addressed the possibility of delayed-onset tinnitus since the Veteran reported only having a five to six-year history of tinnitus, and the Board agrees.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
Make the Veteran’s claims file available to an audiologist or other appropriate examiner to review.  After a review of the file to include the Veteran’s statements the examiner should address the following:
Is the Veteran’s tinnitus at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) caused by his service to include daily noise exposure from teletypes?
The clinician’s opinion must address the likelihood of whether tinnitus had its onset during service and, if not, whether there was a delayed-onset of tinnitus related to noise exposure during service.
(Continued on the next page)
 
A fully explained rationale for the opinion must be provided.  In doing so, the clinician should also discuss and consider private treatment records in November and December 1996 concerning tinnitus.  If the audiologist is unable to offer the requested opinion, it is essential that he or she offer a rationale for the conclusion that an opinion could not be provided without resort to speculation, together with a statement as to whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge.
 
S. HENEKS
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	D. Bredehorst