Citation Nr: 18154465 Decision Date: 11/30/18 Archive Date: 11/29/18 DOCKET NO. 05-23 257 DATE: November 30, 2018 ORDER New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for a left ankle disability is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for a right ankle disability is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for chronic parotitis with stones, status post left parotidectomy, is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for a left knee disability is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for a right knee disability is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for chronic infections of the eyes, back, and stomach, is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for sinusitis is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for rhinitis is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for a breathing disorder is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for a sleep disorder is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for hiatal hernia is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for a rash of the arms and legs is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for hypothyroidism is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for diabetes is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for headaches is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for neuropathy is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for depression is reopened, and to that extent only, the appeal is granted. An initial rating of 60 percent, but no higher, for Meniere's disease with peripheral vestibular disorder is granted. A rating higher than 10 percent for tinnitus is denied. A rating higher than 10 percent for loss of taste is denied. REMANDED Service connection for a left ankle disability as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection for a right ankle disability as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection for chronic parotitis with stones, status post left parotidectomy, as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection for a left knee disability as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection for a right knee disability as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection for chronic infections of the eyes, back, and stomach, as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection for sinusitis as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection for rhinitis as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection for a breathing disorder as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection for a sleep disorder as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection for hiatal hernia as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection for a rash of the arms and legs as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection for hypothyroidism as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection for diabetes as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection for headaches as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection for neuropathy as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection for depression as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Service connection a dental condition secondary to chronic parotitis with stones, status post left parotidectomy, is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a July 1986 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection for disabilities of the left and right ankles; the Veteran did not appeal that decision or submit new and material evidence during the appeal period and that decision is final. 2. Some of the evidence received since the July 1986 final denial is new and relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claims for service connection for disabilities of the left and right ankles. 3. In a March 2008 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a hiatal hernia, depression, hypothyroidism and chronic infections of the eyes, back, and stomach, and declined to reopen previously denied claims for service connection for chronic parotitis with stones, status post left parotidectomy, disabilities of the left and right knees, sinusitis, rhinitis, a breathing disorder, a sleep disorder, a rash of the arms and legs, diabetes, headaches and neuropathy; the Veteran did not appeal that decision or submit new and material evidence during the appeal period and that decision is final. 4. Some of the evidence received since the March 2008 final denial is new and relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claims for service connection for hiatal hernia; depression; hypothyroidism; chronic infections of the eyes, back, and stomach; chronic parotitis with stones, status post left parotidectomy; disabilities of the left and right knees; sinusitis; rhinitis; a breathing disorder; a sleep disorder; a rash of the arms and legs; diabetes; headaches; and neuropathy. 5. The Veteran is in receipt of the maximum schedular rating for tinnitus. 6. The Veteran is in receipt of the maximum schedular rating for loss of taste. 7. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board find that throughout the appeal period, his Meniere’s disease with peripheral vestibular disorder was manifested by attacks of vertigo and cerebellar gait occurring from one to four times a month. 8. The Board does not find the Veteran’s assertions that his Meniere’s disease with peripheral vestibular disorder is manifested by attacks of vertigo and cerebellar gait occurring more than once weekly to be credible. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for a left ankle disability. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 2. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for a right ankle disability. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 3. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for chronic parotitis with stones, status post left parotidectomy. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 4. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for a left knee disability. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 5. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for a right knee disability. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 6. New and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for chronic infections of the eyes, back, and stomach. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 7. New and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for sinusitis. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 8. New and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for rhinitis. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 9. New and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a breathing disorder. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 10. New and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a sleep disorder. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 11. New and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for hiatal hernia. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 12. New and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a rash of the arms and legs. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 13. New and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for hypothyroidism. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 14. New and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 15. New and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for headaches. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 16. New and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for neuropathy. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 17. New and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for depression. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 18. The criteria for an initial 60 percent rating, and no higher, for Meniere’s disease with peripheral vestibular disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6205. 19. The criteria for a rating higher than 10 percent for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6260 (2018). 20. The criteria for a rating higher than 10 percent for loss of taste have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 4.87a, Diagnostic Code 6276 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had honorable active duty service from January 1973 to January 1977 and from August 1982 to August 1985. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The January 2004 rating decision granted service connection for eustachian tube dysfunction and assigned an initial 30 percent rating. The Veteran appealed to the Board and the appeal was denied in May 2009. The Veteran appealed the Board’s May 2009 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In February 2011, the Court entered a Memorandum Decision vacating and remanding the Board’s decision insofar as it denied a higher schedular rating for the Veteran’s service-connected eustachian tube dysfunction. The Court found that the Board had not provided adequate reasons and bases for its conclusion that there was no objective evidence that the Veteran suffered from Meniere’s disease and for its determination that a higher rating was not warranted because the Veteran did not have a cerebellar gait. The claim was remanded by the Board in May 2012 for development consistent with the Court’s remand. In a March 2015 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for Meniere’s disease and recharacterized the disability as Meniere’s disease with peripheral vestibular disorder. The claim was remanded by the Board in October 2017. The October 2010 rating decision declined to reopen the previously denied claims for service connection for hiatal hernia; depression; hypothyroidism; chronic infections of the eyes, back, and stomach; chronic parotitis with stones, status post left parotidectomy; disabilities of the left and right knees; disabilities of the left and right ankles; sinusitis; rhinitis; a breathing disorder; a sleep disorder; a rash of the arms and legs; diabetes; headaches; and neuropathy, and continued the ratings assigned for tinnitus, loss of taste, and bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies. The October 2014 rating decision denied the claim for service connection for a dental condition secondary to chronic parotitis with stones, status post left parotidectomy. These claims were also remanded by the Board in October 2017. Transcripts from hearings conducted in September 2008 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and in December 2013 before a Decision Review Officer are of record. Claims to Reopen 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for left ankle disability. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for right ankle disability. 3. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for chronic parotitis with stones, status post left parotidectomy. 4. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for left knee disability. 5. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for right knee disability. 6. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for chronic infections of the eyes, back, and stomach. 7. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for sinusitis. 8. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for rhinitis. 9. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a breathing disorder. 10. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a sleep disorder. 11. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for hiatal hernia. 12. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a rash of the arms and legs. 13. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for hypothyroidism. 14. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes. 15. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for headaches. 16. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for neuropathy. 17. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for depression. The Veteran’s claims for service connection for disabilities of the left and right ankles were initially denied by way of a July 1986 rating decision. The Veteran did not initiate an appeal or submit new and material evidence during the appeal period and that decision became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(b); 20.302, 20.1103 (2018); see also Bond v. Shinseki, 659 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 251-52 (2010). The Veteran’s claims for service connection for hiatal hernia, depression, hypothyroidism and chronic infections of the eyes, back, and stomach, were initially denied by way of a March 2008 rating decision. That rating decision also declined to reopen previously denied claims for service connection for chronic parotitis with stones, status post left parotidectomy, disabilities of the left and right knees, sinusitis, rhinitis, a breathing disorder, a sleep disorder, a rash of the arms and legs, diabetes, headaches and neuropathy. The Veteran did not initiate an appeal or submit new and material evidence during the appeal period and that decision became final. Id. The Veteran filed a claim to reopen to establish service connection for the 17 disabilities listed above in February 2010. In the October 2010 rating decision that is the subject of this appeal, the RO declined to reopen the claims and continued the denials issued in the prior final rating decisions. Although all but the claims for service connection for diabetes and neuropathy were reopened in a March 2015 statement of the case, the Board has an obligation to make an independent determination of its jurisdiction regardless of findings/actions by the RO. Barnett v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 1 (1995), aff’d, 83 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Generally, if a claim of entitlement to service connection has been previously denied and that decision has become final, the claim can be reopened and reconsidered only if new and material evidence is presented with respect to that claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5108. New evidence is defined as existing evidence not previously submitted to decision makers. Material evidence means evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative, nor redundant of the evidence previously of record, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). The threshold to reopen a claim is low. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 118 (2010). New and material evidence can be construed as that which would contribute to a more complete picture of the circumstances surrounding the origin of a Veteran’s disability or injury, even when it would not be enough to convince the Board to grant the claim. Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In establishing whether new and material evidence has been received, the credibility of the evidence, but not its weight, is to be presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). The July 1986 final rating decision denied the claims involving disabilities of the left and right ankles because the conditions were not shown in the evidence of record. The March 2008 final rating decision denied the claims for depression, hiatal hernia, and disabilities of the left and right knees because there was no current diagnosis; the claim for chronic infections of the eyes, back and stomach was denied on the basis that it neither occurred in, nor was caused, by service and the claim for hypothyroidism was denied on the basis that it neither occurred in, nor was caused, by service, nor was it related to a service-connected condition. The March 2008 final rating decision declined to reopen the claims for service connection for a sleep disorder, sinusitis, headaches, rhinitis, a breathing disorder, and a rash of the arms and legs because the evidence did not show the conditions began in service or were related to left ear surgery. It declined to reopen the claim for service connection for chronic parotitis with stones, status post left parotidectomy, because the evidence did not show the condition began in service or was caused by a service-connected disability. It declined to reopen the claims for service connection for diabetes and neuropathy because the evidence did not show the conditions began in service, were due to Agent Orange exposure, or were related to lack of sleep caused by breathing problems claimed as due to left ear surgery; or that diabetes manifested within one year of discharge. Taken together, the evidence added to the record since the last final July 1986 and March 2008 rating decisions is new. It is also considered material, as it contributes to a more complete picture of the origins of the claimed disabilities. Accordingly, the Board finds that new and material evidence has been received and the claims for service connection listed above are reopened. See Shade, 24 Vet. App. 110. The underlying claims are addressed below in the remand portion of this decision. Increased Ratings Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) and are intended to represent the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. Disabilities must be reviewed in relation to their history. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Other applicable, general policy considerations are: interpreting reports of examination in light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating many accurately reflect the elements of disability, 38 C.F.R. § 4.2; resolving any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability in favor of the claimant, 38 C.F.R. § 4.3; where there is a questions as to which of two evaluations apply, assigning a higher of the two where the disability pictures more nearly approximates the criteria for the next higher rating, 38 C.F.R. § 4.7; and, evaluating functional impairment on the basis of lack of usefulness, and the effects of the disability upon the person’s ordinary activity, 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). 18. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 30 percent for Meniere's disease with peripheral vestibular disorder The January 2004 rating decision that is the subject of this appeal granted service connection for eustachian tube dysfunction on the basis that it was a result of the 1998 left ear surgery; an initial 30 percent rating pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6204 was assigned effective August 25, 2003. This appeal ensued and the claim was denied in a May 2009 Board decision that the Veteran appealed to the Court. In the Court’s February 2011 Memorandum Decision, it found that the Board had not provided adequate reasons and bases for its conclusion that there was no objective evidence that the Veteran suffered from Meniere’s disease and for its determination that a higher rating was not warranted under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6205 (pertaining to the evaluation of Meniere’s syndrome/endolymphatic hydrops) in the absence of cerebellar gait. In a March 2015 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for Meniere’s disease and recharacterized the disability as Meniere’s disease with peripheral vestibular disorder. The initial 30 percent rating was continued under Diagnostic Code 6204 in conjunction with 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6205. The Veteran seeks a higher initial rating. Most of his assertions related to why he feels entitled to a higher rating are based on his contention that he should be service-connected for Meniere’s disease (which has subsequently been granted) and that he has additional residual disabilities as a result of the 1998 left ear surgery. Regarding symptomatology specific to his now service-connected Meniere’s disease with peripheral vestibular disorder, the Veteran asserted in an October 2003 letter that he had vertigo, that correlations between changes in barometric pressures will bring on attacks of vertigo, that he experiences this constantly because he lived in and near the mountains, and that he had to move to a lower elevation where he does not experience such severe attacks. In a December 2003 letter, he reported that he walked in a daze half the time, that the dizziness was no joke and seemed to be getting worse every day, and that he could not eat or drink anything that may trigger an attack and sometimes it came on regardless of what he puts in his body. In a January 2004 letter, the Veteran reported he was in a state of dizziness most of the time and that he was sick to his stomach most days and had dizzy spells most of the time. The Veteran testified in September 2008 that he experienced dizziness when he drove especially, and that he sometimes felt dizzy and his head spun when he lied down; he also noted that he stumbled just getting to his desk sometimes and that he also stumbled a little bit just getting out of bed. In an October 2011 statement, the Veteran reported that he lived in the bathroom because he was so sick from the dizziness. In a November 2011 statement, one of the Veteran’s former attorneys reported that the Veteran’s symptoms include vertigo or dizziness with loss of balance, without any indication as to how frequently these symptoms manifested, though the attorney assert that as far back as 2004, the Veteran had symptoms for a rating higher than 30 percent. In December 2013, the Veteran reported dizziness at times. In another document received in December 2013, the Veteran indicated that he experienced dizziness and had experienced it when pulling up to an intersection and stopping, only to have things keep moving. He also reported the attacks got so bad he had to sit down for a long while until it dissipated; that he still walked, but was not as sure footed as before; and that walking and physical activity had become a real effort. When asked during his December 2013 hearing how often he experienced dizziness, the Veteran stated “It comes and goes. I…I…you know…you never know. Oh, when I’m under a lot of stress especially is when…when I…I really have it.” In an April 2015 statement, one of the Veteran’s former attorneys reported that the Veteran had presented lay evidence that he experienced attacks of vertigo once or twice a week. In a May 2017 statement, the Veteran’s current attorney asserts that a rating higher than 30 percent is warranted based on the Veteran’s complaints of vertigo and cerebellar gait occurring at various frequencies from the time the claim was filed until the present; that he is entitled to at least a 60 percent rating as it is clear the vertigo occurs at least one to four times a month; and that by 2015, it is clear that the vertigo was occurring more than once weekly, which at that frequency, supports a 100 percent rating. The attorney also contends that the diagnostic code requires that cerebellar gait occur during attacks of vertigo, but that it does not need to be present at all times. The Board notes that the Veteran does not always associate his dizziness with Meniere’s disease, since he has occasionally asserted that his dizziness is caused by headaches and infections throughout his body. See e.g., statements dated April 2007, October 2011, December 2013 and August 2017. Diagnostic Code 6204 provides the rating criteria for peripheral vestibular disorders. A 30 percent rating is the maximum schedular rating allowed. Diagnostic Code 6205 provides the rating criteria for Meniere’s syndrome (endolymphatic hydrops). Ratings higher than 30 percent are provided if there is hearing impairment with attacks of vertigo and cerebellar gait occurring from one to four times a month, with or without tinnitus (60 percent) and if there is hearing impairment with attacks of vertigo and cerebellar gait occurring more than once weekly, with or without tinnitus (100 percent). A Note to Diagnostic Code 6205 provides that Meniere’s syndrome is to be rated either under these criteria or by separately rating vertigo (as a peripheral vestibular disorder), hearing impairment, and tinnitus, whichever method results in a higher overall rating. The Note also provides that a rating for hearing impairment, tinnitus, or vertigo is not to be combined with a rating under Diagnostic Code 6205. 38 C.F.R. § 4.87. There is medical evidence in addition to the lay evidence discussed above. The Court’s Memorandum Decision specifically noted an October 2004 private medical record indicating a history of dizziness; an April 2005 VA progress note indicating that he “has dizziness, which comes and goes” and makes him “off balance and lasts for about an hour,” he “uses a walking stick at times,” and he “gets off balance when he is tired, lacks sleep or is stressed out;” and an August 2006 private medical record indicating that he has a history of “dizzy spells and loss of balance.” During VA examinations in October 2003, the Veteran reported vertigo and indicated that he felt woozy once in a while but could walk in a straight line, go over uneven surfaces, and close his eyes; he denied any problems with balance. During an April 2005 VA examination, the Veteran reported symptoms of dizziness, which were intermittent. He denied having fallen but reported having to hold on to walls or other objects to prevent falling on several occasions and there had been times when he had had to sit down to prevent falling. These episodes reportedly happened about every two weeks. A June 2013 VA treatment record indicates the Veteran reported dizziness some mornings and staggering out of bed. He reported vertigo in a January 2014 VA record. The Veteran also underwent VA examination in January 2015, at which time he reported episodes of dizziness/vertigo lasting about one to two hours. It was noted that he felt dizzy very frequently, but true vertigo with spinning and clogged ear occurred one to two times a week. His episodes of dizziness/vertigo occurred frequently upon getting up in the morning, sometimes during driving. It also happened at rest when he was tired or stressed out. During a March 2015 VA examination, the Veteran reported feeling dizzy, described as his environment moving and he is standing still, and stumbling out of bed every morning. He denied falls. The March 2015 VA examiner indicated there was no evidence of cerebellar gait and that cerebellar gait would not be caused by or permanently worsened by eustachian tube dysfunction and/or bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, as these conditions do not cause cerebellar gait. The examiner also noted that there was no evidence of a central nervous system condition. In a March 2015 addendum, the January 2015 VA examiner indicated that the Veteran’s statements related to dizziness dated between January 2004 and August 2006, to include in medical evidence of record, are likely the manifestations of the same disease process, which is likely the endolymphatic (vestibular) hydrops. The preponderance of the evidence supports the assignment of an initial rating of 60 percent for Meniere’s disease with peripheral vestibular disorder throughout the appeal period. In making this determination, the Board is resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran based on his reports of vertigo, being dazed, dizziness, stumbling, loss of balance, staggering, and feeling woozy, which when the Veteran was seeking medical treatment prior to the January 2015 VA examination, were symptoms described as coming and going and occurring “once in a while,” intermittently, and some of the time. These reports more nearly approximately attacks of vertigo and cerebellar gait occurring from one to four times a month to support an initial 60 percent rating for Meniere’s disease with peripheral vestibular disorder. While the Board acknowledges that the Veteran’s written statements in seeking a higher rating indicate that the attacks may have occurred more than four times a month, the Board finds the Veteran’s assertions made when seeking medical treatment or undergoing VA examination as to the frequency of the symptoms associated with the disability to be more probative than those made in written documents in seeking VA benefits. See Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991) (holding that interest in the outcome of a proceeding may affect the credibility of testimony). The Board acknowledges that assertions have been made by the Veteran’s former and current attorneys that since the January 2015 VA examination, the Veteran has presented lay evidence to support a 100 percent rating for Meniere’s disease with peripheral vestibular disorder. See statements dated April 2015 and May 2017. The Board also acknowledges that during the January 2015 VA examination, the Veteran reported vertigo occurring one to two times a week. While the Board believes the Veteran is experiencing issues with vertigo and cerebellar gait, it does not find his assertions regarding the extent to which these symptoms are manifest to be credible. This determination is based on the fact that although there is evidence of VA treatment dated after January 2014, with the most recent evidence dated in May 2018, there is no indication that the Veteran sought treatment related to any problems with dizziness, vertigo, balance, staggering and/or stumbling, and he denied dizziness during VA treatment in January 2016. In other words, the Board finds that if the Veteran’s symptoms were as frequent as he describes, he would likely have sought VA and/or private treatment more regularly and that complaints would be noted in the medical evidence of record. See Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991) (VA cannot ignore a veteran’s testimony simply because the veteran is an interested party; personal interest may, however, affect the credibility of the evidence). Accordingly, a rating in excess of 60 percent is not warranted. An argument that the Veteran’s Meniere’s disease with peripheral vestibular disorder is a separate disability from eustachian tube dysfunction and is entitled to a separate evaluation has been raised in the record. See May 2015 notice of disagreement and attached statement. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran’s disability was initially characterized as eustachian tube dysfunction. During an April 2005 VA examination, however, the examiner specifically noted that while the possibility of a mild eustachian tube dysfunction had been entertained in discussion with the Veteran and in his chart, there were no objective findings in the chart to support the diagnosis and a private physician appeared to have offered placement of a pressure equalizer (PE) tube in the left ear as a diagnostic procedure only, hoping for relief of symptoms of dizziness, rather than as a treatment for objectively identified eustachian tube dysfunction. In addition, the January 2015 VA examiner determined that a diagnosis of eustachian tube dysfunction was unlikely based on the Veteran’s normal tympanograms both before and after his 1998 surgery and because there was no evidence of retracted tympanic membranes on examination. In a March 2015 addendum, the same examiner clarified that review of the file did not indicate there were any objective findings of eustachian tube dysfunction, only the opinions of some physicians that suspected it. The determinations made by the April 2005 and January 2015 VA examiners are afforded high probative value because they are based on the objective evidence of record specific to the Veteran. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2008). Regardless, any symptomatology would already be contemplated in the rating assigned for Meniere’s disease, and a separate rating would constitute pyramiding. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 (the evaluation of the same manifestation or disability under different diagnoses is to be avoided). Since the opinions of record indicate that the Veteran does not have a separate eustachian tube dysfunction, a separate rating is not warranted. 19. Entitlement to a rating higher than 10 percent for tinnitus The Veteran seeks an increased rating for tinnitus in excess of the 10 percent rating presently assigned. However, according to VA regulations, a 10 percent evaluation is the maximum schedular rating allowed for tinnitus. 38 C.F.R. § 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6260. Thus, the Veteran’s service-connected tinnitus has been assigned the maximum schedular rating available. Smith v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The evidence does not reflect and the Veteran does not contend that his tinnitus results in an exceptional or unusual disability picture. Moreover, the Board notes that as the Veteran’s Meniere’s disease has been increased to 60 percent under Diagnostic Code 6505, the Veteran’s tinnitus cannot be separately rated from the Meniere’s disease. 38 C.F.R. § 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6205, Note. Accordingly, the appeal is denied. 20. Entitlement to a rating higher than 10 percent for loss of taste Service connection for loss of taste was granted in a January 2004 rating decision; an initial 10 percent rating was assigned pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.87a, Diagnostic Code 6276. The Veteran seeks a higher rating. However, according to VA regulations, a 10 percent evaluation is the maximum schedular rating allowed for loss of taste. 38 C.F.R. § 4.87a, Diagnostic Code 6276. As such, the assignment of a rating higher than 10 percent for loss of taste is impossible under this diagnostic criterion. The Board need not consider whether other diagnostic codes are for application since the disability is specifically listed in the rating schedule. See Suttmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 127, 134 (1993); Copeland v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 333, 338 (2015). The evidence does not reflect and the Veteran does not contend that his loss of taste results in an exceptional or unusual disability picture. Accordingly, the appeal is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran has submitted numerous statements throughout the appeal and has had many different representatives who have also submitted statements in conjunction with his claims. The Board has reviewed those documents to ascertain the assertions the Veteran is making regarding all his claims for service connection. Essentially, the Veteran contends that an October 1998 surgery performed by VA on his left ear in conjunction with the service-connected otosclerosis, during which his left chorda tympani nerve was transected, resulted in infection setting in to his face, including the sinuses, and into the parotid gland. He also asserts that the infection was not properly diagnosed by VA and it took a private practitioner to diagnose chronic parotitis with stones. The Veteran further asserts that the chronic parotitis resulted in infections that affected different body systems, to include his eyes, joints, skin and thyroid, and that he almost died as a result of the infections. 1. Service connection for chronic parotitis with stones, status post left parotidectomy, as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. 2. Service connection for sinusitis as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. 3. Service connection for rhinitis as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. There is no question that the Veteran developed chronic parotitis and stones and that he underwent a private surgical procedure in December 2004 due to chronic left parotid gland sialadenitis. There is also no question that the Veteran was treated for symptoms associated with rhinitis and sinusitis prior to his December 2004 surgery. In that regard, he underwent bilateral turbinate reduction with submucous resection due to a diagnosis of vasomotor rhinitis in January 2004, during which his turbinate bones were removed; treatment records indicate that he reported a three-year history of intermittent jaw and ear swelling in March 2004 and a three-year history of left sided facial swelling and pain around approximately July 2004; and a June 2004 record notes concern for chronic sinusitis/parotitis. What is unclear is whether the development of chronic left parotid gland sialadenitis was the result of the nerve that was transected during the October 1998 surgery. Three opinions have been submitted on this matter. A May 2009 opinion provided by Dr. C.N.B. is not probative because it does not provide adequate rationale and a May 2015 opinion from the same provider is not probative because it is conclusory. An undated document from Dr. W.S.B.. is not probative because it is speculative. Remand is needed for an opinion that addresses this matter. The opinion should also address whether the Veteran developed rhinitis and/or sinusitis as a result of the transected nerve. 4. Service connection for a left knee disability as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. 5. Service connection for a right knee disability as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. 6. Service connection for a left ankle disability as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. 7. Service connection for a right ankle disability as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. 8. Service connection for chronic infections of the eyes, back, and stomach as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. 9. Service connection for a breathing disorder as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. 10. Service connection for a sleep disorder as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. 11. Service connection for hiatal hernia as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. 12. connection for a rash of the arms and legs as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. 13. Service connection for hypothyroidism as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. 14. Service connection for diabetes as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. 15. Service connection for headaches as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. 16. service connection for neuropathy as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. 17. Service connection for depression as secondary to bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. Issues four through 17 are inextricably intertwined with the claim for service connection for chronic parotitis with stones, status post left parotidectomy. 18. Service connection for a dental condition secondary to chronic parotitis with stones, status post left parotidectomy, is remanded. This claim is inextricably intertwined with the claim for service connection for chronic parotitis with stones, status post left parotidectomy, because the Veteran is asserting his dental problems are due to low salivary flow from parotitis 19. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, is remanded. This disability is rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100, in conjunction with 38 C.F.R. § 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6202, which provides that otosclerosis is to be rated based on hearing impairment. The most recent VA examination did not include audiometric evaluation. This must be rectified on remand. 20. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. This claim is inextricably intertwined with the reopened claims for service connection since it is based, in part, on chronic parotitis. See VA Form 21-8940. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an opinion from an ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgeon that addresses the Veteran’s contention that an October 1998 surgery performed by VA on his left ear in conjunction with the service-connected otosclerosis, during which his left chorda tympani nerve was transected, resulted in infection setting in to his face, including the sinuses, and the parotid gland. He also asserts that the infection was not properly diagnosed by VA and it took a private practitioner to diagnose chronic parotitis with stones. Following review of the claims file, the examiner is asked to specifically address whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s development of chronic left parotid gland sialadenitis, rhinitis, and/or sinusitis was the result of the left chorda tympani nerve transection during the October 1998 VA surgery. The ENT surgeon should explain why or why not. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination to determine the current severity of the bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies. The claims file should be reviewed by the examiner. All necessary tests should be performed and the results reported. All symptomatology associated with the bilateral otosclerosis with impaired hearing, post-operative stapedectomies, should be reported. 3. After undertaking the development above and any additional development deemed necessary, the Veteran’s claims should be readjudicated. The RO should be mindful of the rules regarding pyramiding with respect to the evaluation to be assigned for hearing loss in light of the requirements set forth in the Note to Diagnostic Code 6205 for rating Meniere’s disease. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Van Wambeke, Counsel