Citation Nr: 18148405 Decision Date: 11/07/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 16-44 037 DATE: November 7, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for Meniere’s disease is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. FINDING OF FACT Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, his tinnitus is causally related to acoustic trauma he experienced during his active duty military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1978 to April 1981. In June 2018, he testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the proceeding is in the record. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran provided sworn testimony during his June 2018 Board hearing that he first began noticing ringing in his ears during active duty service, and he has experienced these symptoms ever since his active duty service. He contends that his condition is the result of acoustic trauma experienced while on active duty service, and he attested that he has lived with these symptoms ever since service. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus that began during active service because of acoustic noise exposure. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). For VA purposes, tinnitus has been specifically found to be a disorder with symptoms that can be identified through lay observation alone. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). The Board finds the Veteran credible regarding his claim that he experiences symptoms of tinnitus. See Charles, 16 Vet. App. at 370. He has attributed the tinnitus to noise exposure in service, which is conceded. He testified at his recent Board hearing that symptoms of tinnitus began during active duty service. Notwithstanding the negative May 2014 VA opinion, the Board finds that the record reasonably supports entitlement of the Veteran to service connection for tinnitus based on the Veteran’s own testimony. His assertion that it began during service is consistent with the circumstances of his service. The evidence regarding the onset of tinnitus is in equipoise. Thus, affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b). REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for Meniere’s disease is remanded. The Veteran stated at his Board hearing that he has experienced symptoms of dizziness since active duty service. He was only formally diagnosed in 2010 with Meniere’s disease after his symptoms significantly worsened. Considering the Veteran’s credible testimony reporting problems with dizziness since active duty service and his currently diagnosed Meniere’s disease, he should be afforded a VA examination with opinion on this issue. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). 2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran contends that he developed bilateral hearing loss because of exposure to acoustic trauma during active duty service. He maintains that his hearing loss was the result of working close to jets while transporting fuel as a motor transport operator. In May 2014, the Veteran underwent a VA examination where he was diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss. While the examiner provided a negative nexus opinion, she added that the Veteran was diagnosed with Meniere’s disease in 2010, an ear disease that was most likely causing his ear symptoms. As such, this issue is intertwined with the Veteran’s service connection claim for Meniere’s disease and must also be remanded pending resolution of that issue. 3. Entitlement to TDIU is remanded. As the issue of entitlement to TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the Veteran’s other claims, adjudication of the TDIU issue will be deferred until the above-noted issues are adjudicated. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1990). Since the claims file is being returned it should be updated to include any outstanding VA treatment records. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(2); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from March 2018 to the present. 2. After completion of the above, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of Meniere’s disease and hearing loss. The claims folder and any pertinent medical records should be made available for review by the examiner. The examiner should perform any diagnostic tests deemed necessary and elicit from the Veteran a complete medical history, including any medical treatment. Following a review of the record, and any necessary testing, the examiner should address the following question: Is it as least as likely as not (i.e., probability of 50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s diagnosed Meniere’s disease had its onset in or was otherwise related to active duty service? Is it as least as likely as not that the Veteran’s diagnosed hearing loss had its onset in or was otherwise related to active duty service? If not, is the hearing loss caused or aggravated (defined as any increase in disability) by the Meniere’s disease? A full rationale is to be provided for all stated medical opinions. If the examiner concludes that the requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the examiner should so state and explain why this opinion would be speculative and what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. 3. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, including the TDIU claim. M. E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jack S. Komperda, Counsel