Citation Nr: 18153799 Decision Date: 11/29/18 Archive Date: 11/28/18 DOCKET NO. 16-48 759 DATE: November 29, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has the maximum allowable schedular evaluation for tinnitus under the applicable rating criteria. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6260 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1992 to April 1997. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Los Angeles, California. Pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA), VA has duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 (2017). Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). 1. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus The Veteran is seeking a higher evaluation for his tinnitus. Throughout the current appeal, the Veteran’s tinnitus has been evaluated as 10 percent disabling under 38 C.F.R. § 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6260. Diagnostic Code 6260 assigns only a single evaluation of 10 percent for recurrent tinnitus, whether the sound is perceived as being in one ear, both ears, or in the head. 38 C.F.R. § 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6260, Note 2 (2017). The maximum schedular rating available for tinnitus is 10 percent. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 4.87 (2017); Smith v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As the maximum schedular rating for tinnitus under Diagnostic Code 6260 has already been assigned, a higher schedular rating is not available, and the Veteran’s claim for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral tinnitus must be denied on a lack of entitlement under the law. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). The Board has considered whether the Veteran’s tinnitus present an exceptional or unusual disability picture as to render impractical the application of the regular schedular standards such that referral to the appropriate officials for consideration of an extraschedular rating is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321 (2017). However, the Board does not find that his tinnitus represents an exceptional or unusual disability pattern. Id. The Veteran reported that his tinnitus resulted in difficulties sleeping, which makes him irritable. Additionally, in a March 2017 statement, the Veteran reported hearing difficulties and stated that his ears ached, excruciating headaches, and blurry vision. While these reported symptoms and their resulting effects are not fully contemplated by the rating schedule, the evidence does not show that the Veteran’s tinnitus caused marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization. As such, the Board finds referral for an extraschedular rating is not appropriate. Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008). REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. In a July 2016 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The July 2016 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s carpal tunnel syndrome was less likely than not caused by the Veteran’s in-service exposure to jet chemicals. He further stated that carpal tunnel syndrome usually developed as a result of repetitive motion. In the October 2016 substantive appeal, the Veteran stated he experienced repetitive motion in service as a jet mechanic. He elaborated that removing panels and drilling had to be done manually. The Veteran’s military records show that he served as a hydraulics mechanic. As the July 2016 VA examination did not address the Veteran’s lay statements regarding in-service repetitive motion, the Board finds that it is incomplete. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). As such, a remand is required. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s carpal tunnel syndrome. Provide the claims file, including a copy of this REMAND, to the examiner for review. After reviewing the claims file, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s currently diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome is etiologically related to his active service, to include his reported in-service repetitive motion. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed must be provided. If an opinion cannot be expressed without resort to speculation, discuss why this is the case. LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. Ko, Associate Counsel