Citation Nr: 18146537 Decision Date: 11/01/18 Archive Date: 10/31/18 DOCKET NO. 16-13 737 DATE: November 1, 2018 ORDER The request to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for a left wrist disability is denied. The request to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for a right wrist disability is denied. The request to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for a cervical spine disability is granted. The request to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. The request to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. The request to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD is granted. Service connection for a left shoulder disability is denied. Service connection for a left elbow disability is denied. Service connection for a right hip disability is denied. Service connection for a left hip disability is denied. Service connection for a left knee disability is denied. Service connection for a right knee disability is denied. Service connection for a right leg neurological disability, claimed as right leg tingling, is denied. Service connection for PTSD is granted. Service connection for cervical spine degenerative disc disease is granted. A TDIU prior to August 22, 2016 is granted. The issue of a rating higher than 40 percent for lumbar spine degenerative disc and joint disease is dismissed. The issue of a compensable rating for left leg shin splints is dismissed. The issue of a compensable rating for right leg shin splints is dismissed. The issue of a rating higher than 10 percent for pes planus is dismissed. The issue of a rating higher than 10 percent for left upper lip eczematous dermatitis and pseudofolliculitis barbae is dismissed. The issue of a compensable rating for verruca vulgaris is dismissed. The issue of a rating higher than 20 percent for left ankle degenerative joint disease is dismissed. The issue of a rating higher than 20 percent for right ankle degenerative joint disease is dismissed. REMANDED Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Service connection for a left arm neurological disability, claimed as left arm tingling, is remanded. Service connection for a right arm neurological disability, claimed as right arm tingling, is remanded. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran did not appeal a December 1983 rating decision which denied service connection for a left wrist disability, and evidence received since that time does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 2. The Veteran did not appeal a December 1983 rating decision which denied service connection for a right wrist disability, and evidence received since that time does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 3. The Veteran did not appeal a December 1983 rating decision which denied service connection for a cervical spine disability, but evidence received since that time raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 4. The Veteran did not appeal a May 2001 rating decision which denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss, but evidence received since that time raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 5. The Veteran did not appeal an August 2008 rating decision which denied service connection for PTSD, but evidence received since that time raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 6. The Veteran did not appeal a September 1990 rating decision which denied service connection for a psychiatric disorder, but evidence received since that time raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 7. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a left shoulder disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 8. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a left elbow disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 9. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a right hip disability due to a disease or injury in service, to include parachute jumps in service. 10. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a left hip disability due to a disease or injury in service, to include parachute jumps in service. 11. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a left knee disability due to a disease or injury in service, to include parachute jumps in service. 12. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a right knee disability due to a disease or injury in service, to include parachute jumps in service. 13. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has, or has had at any time during the appeal, a current diagnosis of a right leg neurological disability. 14. PTSD has been attributed to a verified in-service stressor. 15. The Veteran’s cervical spine degenerative disc disease is related to an October 1977 injury. 16. Prior to August 22, 2016, the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities precluded him from obtaining or maintaining gainful employment consistent with his education and experience. 17. During the January 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran withdrew his claim for a rating higher than 40 percent for lumbar spine degenerative disc and joint disease. 18. During the January 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran withdrew his claim for a compensable rating for left leg shin splints. 19. During the January 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran withdrew his claim for a compensable rating for right leg shin splints. 20. During the January 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran withdrew his claim for a rating higher than 10 percent for pes planus. 21. During the January 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran withdrew his claim for a rating higher than 10 percent for left upper lip eczematous dermatitis and pseudofolliculitis barbae. 22. During the January 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran withdrew his claim for a compensable rating for verruca vulgaris. 23. During the January 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran withdrew his claim for a rating higher than 20 percent for left ankle degenerative joint disease. 24. During the January 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran withdrew his claim for a rating higher than 20 percent for right ankle degenerative joint disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The December 1983 rating decision which denied service connection for a left wrist disability is final, and new and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(a), 3.156, 3.160(d), 20.200, 20.302, 20.1103. 2. The December 1983 rating decision which denied service connection for a right wrist disability is final, and new and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(a), 3.156, 3.160(d), 20.200, 20.302, 20.1103. 3. The December 1983 rating decision which denied service connection for a cervical spine disability is final, but new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(a), 3.156, 3.160(d), 20.200, 20.302, 20.1103. 4. The May 2001 rating decision which denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss is final, but new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(a), 3.156, 3.160(d), 20.200, 20.302, 20.1103. 5. The August 2008 rating decision which denied service connection for PTSD is final, but new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(a), 3.156, 3.160(d), 20.200, 20.302, 20.1103. 6. The September 1990 rating decision which denied service connection for a psychiatric disorder is final, but new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(a), 3.156, 3.160(d), 20.200, 20.302, 20.1103. 7. The criteria for service connection for a left shoulder disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 8. The criteria for service connection for a left elbow disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 9. The criteria for service connection for a right hip disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 10. The criteria for service connection for a left hip disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 11. The criteria for service connection for a left knee disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 12. The criteria for service connection for a right knee disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 13. The criteria for service connection for a right leg neurological disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.310. 14. The criteria for service connection for PTSD are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.304. 15. The criteria for service connection for cervical spine degenerative disc disease are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 16. Prior to August 22, 2016, the criteria for a TDIU have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.2, 4.16. 17. The criteria are met for withdrawal of the appeal for a rating higher than 40 percent for lumbar spine degenerative disc and joint disease. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 18. The criteria are met for withdrawal of the appeal for a compensable rating for left leg shin splints. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 19. The criteria are met for withdrawal of the appeal for a compensable rating for right leg shin splints. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 20. The criteria are met for withdrawal of the appeal for a rating higher than 10 percent for pes planus. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 21. The criteria are met for withdrawal of the appeal for a rating higher than 10 percent for left upper lip eczematous dermatitis and pseudofolliculitis barbae. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 22. The criteria are met for withdrawal of the appeal for a compensable rating for verruca vulgaris. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 23. The criteria are met for withdrawal of the appeal for a rating higher than 20 percent for left ankle degenerative joint disease. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 24. The criteria are met for withdrawal of the appeal for a rating higher than 20 percent for right ankle degenerative joint disease. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Army from June 1972 to December 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2014 rating decision. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Board hearing in January 2017. Reopening Previously Denied Claims Generally, a claim that has been denied by an unappealed RO decision or an unappealed Board decision may not thereafter be reopened. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104(b), 7105(c). An exception to this rule exists for cases in which new and material evidence is presented with respect to a claim that had been denied, in which case the claim must be reopened and the former disposition reviewed. 38 U.S.C. § 5108. “New” evidence means evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers, and “material” evidence means evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). This is a “low threshold” in which the phrase “raises a reasonable possibility” should be interpreted as “enabling rather than precluding reopening.” Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 121 (2010). The credibility of the newly-submitted evidence is presumed, although not blindly accepted as true if patently incredible. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510 (1992). 1. Left wrist 2. Right wrist The Veteran was previously denied service connection for “arthritis of multiple joints,” including consideration for the wrists, in a December 1983 rating decision. He did not appeal this decision and it became final. The basis of the denial was that the evidence did not establish a current left or right wrist disability. Since that decision, the Veteran testified at his Board hearing that he had joint pain, including in the wrists, that started around 2000 or 2001. This evidence is not new because the Veteran previously reported such joint pain at the time of his prior denial. Moreover, extensive outpatient treatment records have been generated since December 1983 but do not reflect any diagnoses of left or right wrist conditions. Therefore, new and material evidence has not been received to reopen these previously denied claims. 3. Cervical spine The Veteran was previously denied service connection for “arthritis of multiple joints,” including consideration for the cervical spine, in a December 1983 rating decision. He did not appeal this decision and it became final. The basis of the denial was that the evidence did not establish a current cervical spine disability. Since that decision, additional treatment records have been associated with the claims file. These include November 2011 private records documenting cervical spine degenerative disc disease and August 2013 VA records showing cervical spondylosis. These records are new because they were not part of the record at the time of the prior denial. They are also material because they relate to the previously unestablished element of whether the Veteran has a current cervical spine disability. Based on this new and material evidence, the claim is reopened and will be discussed on the merits below. 4. Bilateral hearing loss The Veteran was previously denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss in a May 2001 rating decision. He did not appeal this decision and it became final. The basis of the denial was that the Veteran had normal hearing in service. In other words, the evidence did not establish an in-service incurrence of hearing loss. Since that decision, additional evidence has been received. A December 2013 VA examination documented current bilateral hearing loss, which had not been established at the time of the prior denial. Notably, the May 2001 rating decision incorrectly stated that the Veteran had normal hearing for VA purposes on all exams of record. However, his service treatment records include an October 1972 examination which shows hearing loss for VA purposes. When viewed alongside this evidence, the December 2013 VA examination findings are sufficient to reopen the claim under the “low threshold” described above. This reopened claim is discussed further in the Reasons for Remand section below. 5. PTSD The Veteran was previously denied service connection for PTSD in an August 2008 rating decision. He did not appeal this decision and it became final. The basis of that denial was that the Veteran had only one verified stressor in service, and PTSD was not attributed to that stressor. Rather, PTSD was attributed to a personal assault stressor which was not verified. Since that decision, additional evidence has been received. Letters dated September 2008 and October 2013 from the Veteran’s physicians stated he was being treated for PTSD related to his military service. In a January 2015 statement and his January 2017 hearing, the Veteran provided additional details regarding his personal assault stressor. This evidence is new because it was not part of the record at the time of the prior denial. It is also material because it relates to the previously unestablished fact of whether the Veteran’s PTSD is attributable to a verified in-service stressor. Based on this new and material evidence, the claim is reopened and will be discussed on the merits below. 6. Acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD The Veteran was previously denied service connection for depression or other psychiatric disorder in a September 1990 rating decision. He did not appeal this decision and it became final. The basis of that denial was that a psychiatric disorder was not shown in service and was not secondary to his service-connected disabilities. Since that decision, additional evidence has been received. VA records dated January 2001 show the Veteran reported the onset of a mood disorder at around age 19 after being in service for one year. Letters from his VA physicians dated September 2008 and October 2013 stated that he had been treated for bipolar disorder related to his military service. This evidence is new because it was not part of the record at the time of the prior denial. It is also material because it relates to the previously unestablished element of whether the Veteran had a psychiatric disability in service. Based on this new and material evidence, the claim is reopened and will be discussed further in the Reasons for Remand section below. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). 7. Left shoulder disability 8. Left elbow disability The Board concludes that, for these two claims, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. Service treatment records are negative for any complaints, treatment or diagnoses of a left shoulder or left elbow condition. During his November 1979 separation examination, the Veteran specifically denied a history of any shoulder or elbow pain, and the examination itself was normal. Notably, his service treatment records, including his separation examination, contain multiple entries relating to treatment for other orthopedic conditions such as back pain and foot trouble. In other words, the Veteran’s was regularly reporting a variety of medical complaints, including orthopedic complaints, without mention of a left shoulder or left elbow problem. This strongly suggests that no such problems were present during service. See AZ v. Shinseki, 731 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (recognizing the widely-held view that the absence of an entry in a record may be considered evidence that the fact did not occur if it appears that the fact would have been recorded if present). Indeed, the Veteran testified at his Board hearing that pain in these joints did not start until around 2000 or 2001, more than 20 years after his discharge from active service. Therefore, service connection is not warranted. 9. Right hip disability 10. Left hip disability 11. Left knee disability 12. Right knee disability The Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. An April 2014 VA examination diagnosed degenerative joint disease in the bilateral hips and bilateral knees. However, like his left shoulder and left elbow claims above, service treatment records are negative for any complaints, treatment or diagnoses related to the hips or knees. For the reasons set forth above, this strongly suggests that no hip or knee problems were present during service. Nevertheless, the Veteran was afforded the April 2014 VA examination to determine whether his hip or knee disabilities were the result of his service as a paratrooper and the associated parachute jumps. However, the Veteran reported during the examination that he started experiencing hip pain and wrapping his knees in 2002. The examiner stated that the Veteran’s hip and knee conditions did not begin until 2002, and that if they were due to his active service, there would be evidence of those conditions within 5 years of that service. The Board notes that VA records from October 2000 show complaints of hip and knee pain, which is about 2 years earlier than reported by the Veteran. Nevertheless, the examiner’s rationale for concluding that the current disabilities are not related to service still holds. Finally, the Veteran testified at his Board hearing that he has experienced knee pain since service. He also reported that he did not initially seek treatment because he lived in Colorado Springs and the nearest VA hospital was in Denver. The Board has considered this testimony but does not find it credible. Not only did the Veteran denied a history of any knee problems at the time of his November 1979 separation examination, but a September 1983 VA examination documented normal knee range of motion without mentioning any symptoms or other impairment. This undercuts the Veteran’s assertion of continuous knee symptoms since service and bolsters the VA examiner’s conclusion by documenting normal knee findings about 4 years after discharge. For these reasons, service connection for bilateral hip or bilateral knee disabilities is not warranted. 13. Right leg neurological disability The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a right leg neuro and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). VA records from July 2003 and February 2009 reflect complaints of sciatica and back pain radiating to the legs. However, VA examinations from December 2013 and April 2014 recorded normal neurological findings in the right leg, and the examiner stated that the Veteran did not have any signs or symptoms of radiculopathy. His outpatient records are otherwise negative for a right leg neurological diagnosis. While the Veteran may believe he has a current right leg neurological condition, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex as it requires specialized medical education. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence which does not show a currently diagnosed disability. In the absence of a diagnosis for a right leg neurological disability, service connection cannot be granted at this time. Notably, because the Veteran is service-connected for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease, any future evaluation of that disability may include a separate rating for any associated neurological abnormalities found to be present. 14. PTSD The requirements for establishing entitlement to service connection for PTSD in 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) are similar, but nonetheless distinct, from those for establishing entitlement to service connection generally. Arzio v. Shinseki, 602 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Entitlement to service connection for PTSD requires (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); (2) credible supporting evidence that a claimed in-service stressor occurred; and (3) a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and the in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.304(f) and 4.125. The Veteran’s treatment records and a VA examination establish a current diagnosis of PTSD. With regard to in-service stressors, the Veteran reported being assaulted by his platoon sergeant, finding out one of his friends had drowned, and discovering the body of another friend who died of a heroin overdose. This third stressor was verified as stated in the August 2008 rating decision. In addition, July 2007 VA records show a diagnosis of PTSD based on all three of the above traumas, including the verified death of a friend. This is sufficient to establish service connection for PTSD. Notably, a July 2008 VA examiner stated that PTSD was unlikely to be due to the overdose stressor, and was instead due to the personal assault. Nevertheless, the evidence remains in equipoise as to whether PTSD is due to this stressor, and therefore service connection is warranted. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s testimony regarding the personal assault. However, as service connection has been granted, further discussion regarding that stressor is not warranted. 15. Service connection for a cervical spine disability The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of cervical spine degenerative disc disease that is related to an in-service injury. Private treatment records from November 2011 document severe multilevel degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine based on x-ray findings. Service treatment records show the Veteran sustained a mid-thoracic spine injury in October 1977 after a wall locker fell on him while he was moving it. During a September 1983 VA examination, the Veteran reported an onset of neck pain after this incident, and the examiner diagnosed neck arthralgia with x-ray findings of reversed lordosis in the cervical spine. Although there is no specific medical opinion linking the current disability to the in-service injury, the Board notes that a VA examiner stated that if the Veteran’s hip and knee degenerative joint disease was related to service, there would be evidence of it within 5 years of discharge. Here, there is evidence of a cervical spine disability within 5 years of discharge. It is reasonable to infer that the VA examiner’s opinion regarding the hips and feet extends to the cervical spine as well. Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (the evaluation and weighing of evidence and the drawing of appropriate inferences from it are factual determinations committed to the discretion of the fact finder). For these reasons, service connection for cervical spine degenerative disc disease is granted. TDIU A TDIU may be assigned where the schedular rating is less than total, when it is found that the disabled person is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation due a single service-connected disability ratable at 60 percent or more, or due to two or more disabilities, provided at least one disability is ratable at 40 percent or more, and there is sufficient additional service-connected disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). The central inquiry is determining whether a TDIU is warranted is “whether the veteran’s service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability.” Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). Consideration may be given to a veteran’s level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but advancing age and the impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities are not for consideration in determining whether such a total disability rating is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.16, 4.19; Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993). 16. A TDIU prior to August 22, 2016 The Veteran is service-connected for his lumbar spine, left and right ankles, pes planus, lip dermatitis and pseudofolliculitis barbae, verruca vulgaris, left and right shin splints, PTSD and cervical spine. Disability ratings and effective dates have not yet been assigned for the grants of service connection for PTSD and the cervical spine. Nevertheless, the Veteran already has a combined 70 percent rating, including a 40 percent rating for his lumbar spine, and therefore he meets the schedular criteria for a TDIU. However, a November 2016 letter generated as part of the Veteran’s vocational rehabilitation program stated that his rehabilitation was complete and he had successfully worked as a housekeeping aid as of August 22, 2016. At the January 2017 Board hearing, his representative acknowledged that he was now working but requested consideration for a TDIU for the period prior to his employment. The Board commends the Veteran for successfully completing vocational rehabilitation, and will consider whether a TDIU is warranted prior to August 22, 2016. Through the Veteran’s vocational rehabilitation records, TDIU application, VA examinations, and hearing testimony, the record establishes that he previously worked as a record keeper, banquet server, driver, laborer, bank vault clerk and loan servicing technician. He had not worked since about 2000. He also reported two years of college level education. With regard to functional impairment, VA examiners from December 2013 and April 2014 found that the Veteran could not bend, run, twist or lift due to his lumbar spine disability. He also cannot stand for prolonged periods due to foot pain associated with pes planus. His lumbar spine, pes planus and bilateral ankle disabilities would limit him to a sedentary position with minimal walking and minimal standing. He would also require frequent stretch breaks. His bilateral shin splints, left lip dermatitis, pseudofolliculitis barbae and verruca vulgaris had no significant functional impact. The Veteran’s treatment records regarding PTSD are extensive, but generally document some impairment with occupational and social functioning. Letters dated September 2008 and October 2013 from his treating VA physicians stated that he has been unable to work since 2000 due to both mental and physical health problems. Based on the above, the Board finds that a TDIU is warranted because the functional limitations outlined above would likely preclude the Veteran from engaging in the types of employment consistent with his work history and education. Those physical limitations (limitations on standing and walking, no bending or lifting, etc.) are not consistent with work as a laborer, driver or banquet server. The Board also finds that his need for frequent stretch breaks may not be compatible with the sedentary positions he previously worked, such as a loan servicing technician. When these limitations are viewed alongside the impact of the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD, it is unlikely that he was capable of gainful employment during the appeal period. This is generally consistent with the statements from his VA physicians that he was not able to work due to physical and mental health problems. For these reasons, a TDIU is warranted prior to August 22, 2016. Withdrawn Issues 17. A rating higher than 40 percent for lumbar spine degenerative disc and joint disease. 18. A compensable rating for left leg shin splints. 19. A compensable rating for right leg shin splints 20. A rating higher than 10 percent for pes planus 21. A rating higher than 10 percent for left upper lip eczematous dermatitis and pseudofolliculitis barbae 22. A compensable rating for verruca vulgaris 23. A rating higher than 20 percent for left ankle degenerative joint disease 24. A rating higher than 20 percent for right ankle degenerative joint disease Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. A substantive appeal may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202. Prior to the promulgation of a decision in this case, the Veteran, with the assistance of his representative, stated on the record at the January 2017 Board hearing that he was withdrawing the above-listed claims. Therefore, a “case or controversy” involving a pending adverse determination that the Veteran has taken exception to does not currently exist with respect to these issues. See Shoen v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 456, 457 (1994). Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal for these claims, and they are dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. A December 2013 VA examiner concluded that the Veteran’s current hearing loss was not related to service. The rationale was that there was no permanent positive threshold shift greater than normal measurement variability at any of the tested frequencies, and studies have shown insufficient evidence to determine whether permanent noise induced hearing loss can develop long after the cessation of noise exposure. This examination report is inadequate for two reasons. First, in one section of the report, the examiner states that the Veteran’s hearing loss existed prior to service and was not aggravated beyond its normal progression. This is not consistent with his June 1972 enlistment examination, which showed normal hearing. However, an October 1972 airborne examination documented hearing loss for VA purposes in both ears. It is unclear whether the examiner mistook the October 1972 examination for the Veteran’s initial enlistment examination. A supplemental opinion is warranted. 2. Service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The December 2013 VA examiner who concluded that hearing loss was not related to service essentially relied upon the same rationale to find that tinnitus was also not related to service. As discussed above, this opinion is not adequate and a supplemental opinion is required. This opinion should address the medical treatise information submitted by the Veteran in January 2017, which states that noise exposure capable of causing damage to the auditory system can result in delayed-onset tinnitus, even when onset occurs years after the event. 3. Service connection for a left arm neurological disability is remanded. 4. Service connection for a right arm neurological disability is remanded. As discussed above, the Veteran has been granted service connection for a cervical spine disability. An examination is necessary to determine whether he has any left or right arm neurological disabilities associated with his cervical spine condition. 5. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD is remanded. The Veteran had a current diagnosis of bipolar disorder. During his November 1979 separation examination, he reported a history of depression or excessive worry, though no further notation was recorded. An examination is necessary to determine whether the Veteran has bipolar disorder or another psychiatric disorder, separate from PTSD, which is related to service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the record to an appropriate clinician to obtain a medical opinion addressing the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s current hearing loss. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including established aircraft noise exposure in service. The examiner should comment on the significance, if any, of the October 1972 examination which shows bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes after the Veteran entered active service. 2. Forward the record to an appropriate clinician to obtain a medical opinion addressing the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s current tinnitus. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including established aircraft noise exposure in service. The examiner should comment on the significance, if any, of the medical treatise submitted in January 2017 which states that noise exposure capable of causing damage to the auditory system can result in delayed-onset tinnitus, even when onset occurs years after the event. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to obtain an opinion addressing the nature and etiology of any left or right upper extremity neurological disability. The examiner must opine whether any diagnosed disability is at least as likely as not (1) proximately due to the service-connected cervical spine degenerative disc disease, or (2) aggravated beyond its natural progression by service-connected cervical spine degenerative disc disease. 4. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to opinion an opinion addressing the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder, other than PTSD. The examiner must opine whether any diagnosed disability is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including depression or excessive worry reported during the Veteran’s November 1979 separation examination. M. TENNER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Shamil Patel, Counsel