Citation Nr: 18158598 Decision Date: 12/18/18 Archive Date: 12/17/18 DOCKET NO. 16-57 398 DATE: December 18, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for vertigo is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s vertigo is etiologically related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for vertigo have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2018) REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from May 1970 to November 1971. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service Connection - Vertigo The Veteran has asserted that he has vertigo as a result of a right ear drum injury sustained in active service. Specifically, the Veteran has claimed that his right ear drum was perforated, which resulted in dizziness and vertigo. Service treatment records (STRs) show that the Veteran’s right ear drum was perforated, resulting in dizziness and vertigo while the Veteran was in active service. Moreover, the Veteran has reported that he first experienced dizziness while in active service and that his symptoms have continued since that time. The Veteran is competent to report when he first experienced symptoms of vertigo and that his symptoms have continued since service. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991). Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran to be credible in that respect. In May 2015 and January 2017, the Veteran was afforded VA evaluations for his claimed vertigo. At those time, the Veteran reported the in-service injury described above. The May 2015 VA examiner diagnosed vertigo and peripheral vestibular disorder. The January 2017 VA examiner diagnosed a tympanic membrane perforation. The examiners opined that the Veteran’s vertigo was not caused by or the result of active service. In this regard, the May 2015 examiner noted that if an ear drum perforation heals and there is no evidence of infection, then it is unlikely to cause damage to the inner ear and cause vertigo. Moreover, the May 2015 examiner noted that the Veteran only had severe vertigo after decades from separation of active service. The January 2017 VA examiner noted that the Veteran had episodic vertigo beginning in 2005 that showed after bell’s palsy, and therefore not caused by the perforation of tympanic membrane. The Board finds the May 2015 and January 2017 VA opinions to be inadequate for adjudication purposes. In this regard, the examiners did not give appropriate consideration to the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. As the opinions are not adequate, they cannot serve as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection. Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, as noted above, the Veteran is competent to identify dizziness and symptoms of vertigo, and his statements have been found credible. In sum, the Board finds that the Veteran sustained right ear drum trauma in active service. The Veteran has competently and credibly reported vertigo in service and since. Moreover, the Veteran’s STRs show a diagnosis of vertigo during active service. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of vertigo. There is no competent VA medical opinion of record against the claim. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claim is at least in equipoise. Therefore, reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran and entitlement to service connection for vertigo is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). ROBERT C. SCHARNBERGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mariah N. Sim, Associate Counsel