Citation Nr: 18160222 Decision Date: 12/26/18 Archive Date: 12/26/18 DOCKET NO. 15-12 046A DATE: December 26, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for pneumonia is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran was treated for pneumonia in July 1979. 2. The Veteran was treated for pneumonia in August 2013 that is not related to his in-service disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for pneumonia have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1979 to April 1986. 1. Entitlement to service connection for pneumonia is denied. Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The Veteran contends that he has pneumonia that was incurred in or is due to service. See August 2013 Claim; see also December 2013 VA Examination. Records show he was treated for pneumonia in July 1979 and again in August 2013. See December 2013 VA Examination. Accordingly, in-service disease and a current disability have been demonstrated. Therefore, the remaining question involves whether there is a relationship between his pneumonia in 1979 and his pneumonia in 2013. As a lay person, the Veteran is competent to report on that which he has personal knowledge. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). Although the Board find that the Veteran is competent and credible to say that he was treated for pneumonia in service and in 2013, the specific question in this case falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a layperson, as it involves making definitive clinical diagnoses based on knowledge of sleep medicine. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011). While the Veteran can describe what he experiences, he is not able to provide competent evidence as to the etiology of his pneumonia. Providing such an opinion pertaining to the etiology of a disease requires medical expertise and the Veteran has no such expertise. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a)(1) (2018). In regard to nexus, a December 2013 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s pneumonia in 2013 was not related to pneumonia in service. The examiner noted in support of her opinion that the Veteran’s pneumonia in 1979 resolved without residual disability. The examiner also noted that the Veteran was treated for pneumonia in 2013 and imaging results showed his infection resolved without residual disability. The examiner noted no medical evidence to support a relationship between the Veteran’s in-service pneumonia and his pneumonia in 2013. The Board find the December 2013 examiner has provided rationale for her opinion and that her opinion is consistent with the evidence of record. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 303-304 (2008). Based on the forgoing, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for pneumonia. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. The Board is grateful for the Veteran’s honorable service, and this decision is not meant to detract from that service. However, for the above reasons, the claim for service connection for pneumonia is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND Issues 2 and 3: Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are remanded. Although the Board regrets further delay, remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record on which to decide the Veteran’s claims. The Veteran contends exposure to acoustic trauma in service and that he has bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus due to service. See June 2013 Claim; see also November 2018 Appellate Brief. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 2013. The VA examiner noted testing results at the examination showed responses from the Veteran had low reliability. See November 2013 Examination. The Board notes the examiner was unable to ascertain if the Veteran has hearing loss and also found that due to the Veteran’s unreliable responses, an opinion on tinnitus could not be made. The Board finds an additional examination is necessary to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus, and the Veteran is encouraged to provide accurate responses to diagnostic testing. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App 190, 193 (1991) (noting that the duty to assist is a two-way street). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should secure any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the current extent and etiology of his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. After review of the claims file, and eliciting a detailed history from the Veteran, the physician should provide an opinion as to the following: a) Is it at least as likely as not, i.e., there is a 50 percent chance or greater, that hearing loss had its onset in service or is due to service? (Continued on the next page)   a) Is it at least as likely as not, i.e., there is a 50 percent chance or greater, that tinnitus had its onset in service or is due to service? A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Trickey