Citation Nr: 18147185 Decision Date: 11/02/18 Archive Date: 11/02/18 DOCKET NO. 15-07 818 DATE: November 2, 2018 ORDER As new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the previously denied claim for service connection for tinnitus has been received, the application to reopen is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for service-connected bilateral hearing loss from February 10, 2014 is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a rating decision dated in September 2012, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection for tinnitus on the basis that the evidence did not show an event, disease, or injury in service and that no link had been shown between the Veteran’s tinnitus and military service; the Veteran did not appeal this decision or submit new evidence within one year of the denial. 2. Evidence received since the September 2012 RO decision is neither cumulative nor redundant of evidence already of record and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The September 2012 rating decision denying service connection for tinnitus is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(a), 20.1103 (2017). 2. New and material evidence sufficient to reopen the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus has been submitted; the claim is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from November 1968 to November 1971. New and Material Evidence The Veteran’s claim for service connection for tinnitus was denied in a September 2012 rating decision. The RO determined that the evidence did not show an event, disease, or injury in service and that no link had been shown between the Veteran’s tinnitus and military service. The Veteran did not appeal this decision or submit new evidence within one year of the denial. The September 2012 decision thereby became final. Since that final decision, the Board finds that the Veteran has submitted new and material evidence. Specifically, in his September 2014 NOD the Veteran wrote that he was exposed to loud noises from M16 and M14 rifle fire, in maintenance, and from heavy equipment. The Board finds that the newly submitted evidence reasonably raises the possibility that the experienced an event or injury in service related to his tinnitus. Because new and material evidence has been submitted, the Board will reopen the claim. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 118 (2010); see also Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (noting that new evidence could be sufficient to reopen a claim if it could contribute to a more complete picture of the circumstances surrounding the origin of a claimant’s injury or disability, even where it would not be enough to convince the Board to grant the claim). REASONS FOR REMAND Upon review of the record, the Board finds that the issues must be remanded. The Board sincerely regrets the additional delay caused by this remand, but wishes to assure the Veteran that it is necessary for a full and fair adjudication of his claims. 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The Board finds that new VA examination and opinion is warranted for the Veteran’s claim, as the record does not contain an adequate etiology opinion. The Veteran’s tinnitus was examined in July 2012 and April 2014. During those examinations the Veteran was diagnosed with tinnitus. However, none of the examiners opined as to whether the Veteran’s condition was related to service. 2. Entitlement to a compensable rating for service-connected bilateral hearing loss from February 10, 2014 is remanded. The Board notes that the Veteran’s last audiological examination of record was in April 2014. As it has been over four and a half years since the Veteran’s hearing loss was tested and the claim for tinnitus is also being remanded, the Board finds that a new examination is appropriate for this claim. See Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121 (1991) (VA has a duty to conduct a thorough and contemporaneous examination of the Veteran in an increased rating claim); Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Assist the Veteran in associating with the claims folder updated treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran with an audiological examination to determine BOTH the current severity of the Veteran’s hearing loss and to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s tinnitus. The claims file should be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination. Based on review of the record and examination of the Veteran, and after eliciting a detailed history of the Veteran’s condition from the Veteran, the examiner should respond to the following: a) Is it at least as likely as not (probability of 50 percent or more) that the Veteran’s current tinnitus had its onset in or is related to service? The examiner is advised that noise exposure has been conceded and the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries, and that his reports must be taken into account in formulating the requested opinions. If there is a medical basis to doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. The examiner must provide the rationale for all proffered opinions. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Gandhi, Associate Counsel