Citation Nr: 19190820 Decision Date: 12/03/19 Archive Date: 12/03/19 DOCKET NO. 14-04 254 DATE: December 3, 2019 ORDER Service connection for left ear condition is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence does not support a finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of otitis externa or other left ear condition. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for left ear condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from May 1986 to August 1986, from November 1990 to May 1991 and from November 1991 to November 2011, including combat service in the Persian Gulf and his decorations include the Combat Action Badge. In October 2017, the Board remanded this issue for additional development, to include a VA examination. Entitlement to service connection for left ear condition. The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to service connection for a left ear condition that began during service. See May 2018 VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that he believed he injured his left inner ear as a result of a motor vehicle during service and that he received stiches. The Veteran also reports that he has scar tissue on his left ear drum. Id. The Veteran’s STRs show the Veteran received stitches in his left ear following a car accident. See February 1994 and June 2001 STRs. As noted, in October 2017, the Board remanded this issue for a VA examination. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in February 2019. The examiner stated that he was unable to render any left ear diagnosis. The examiner reasoned that there is no diagnosis for the Veteran’s claimed left ear disorder because there is no pathology to render a diagnosis. See February 2019 Ear Conditions DBQ. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s claimed condition was less likely than not incurred or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event or illness. The examiner noted based on a review of the claims folder and interview with the Veteran, the Veteran had a minor ear laceration, noted to be 1/4 inch in length, that was incurred in a Humvee incident in 1994 in Japan. The Veteran reported that the only reason that he was seen was due to his wife, not because he thought that it was anything serious. The examiner stated, the left ear was apparently sutured but the examiner could not locate that report, only an initial note of the incident documenting the small laceration with no other associated complaints or findings. The Veteran’s medical history also mentions an ear laceration in 2001 from a motor vehicle accident. The Veteran reported that this incident probably involved his left ear but was not entirely certain. He did not link this event to any residual condition. The examiner noted, there was one other left ear incident related to his STR in June 2010, when he had cerumen (wax) in the ear. The Veteran’s ear drum was reported to look normal, not scarred or infected. With his ear discomfort and the lack of movement of the eardrum, the physician listed a diagnosis of eustachian tube discomfort. The examiner noted, this was a minor condition that can cause ear discomfort or a feeling of fullness in the ears and it commonly resolves on its own or with the aid of anti-histamines or nasal steroids, which were the prescribed treatment in 2010. There were no further complaints of left ear pain, fullness, or other difficulties after the June 2010 STR. There was one visit for otitis externa of the right ear in July of 2010. In several medical exams following the June of 2010 diagnosis of eustachian tube dysfunction, there was no mention of ear difficulties per the Veteran, and the examiner noted, that examinations are all listed as having normal ear findings. By all accounts the June 2010 complaint was an isolated issue that cleared. Relative to the ear injury in 1994 and his claim, the February 2019 examiner stated, he could not give any medical explanation of why this minor injury would lead to chronic 'dullness' in the ear. The examiner reasoned, that if there is hearing loss that is unilateral, then that can be investigated separately, but the claimant reports that no substantial hearing loss has been detected. Further, after the 1994 incident and through separation, there was no mention of any chronic issue from this incident. As noted, the examiner stated that he was unable to render any left ear diagnosis. In Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that “the Board legally erred as to its interpretation of the meaning of 'disability' under § 1110, as pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosis of a present disease, can qualify as a disability.” Thus, in the lack of a diagnosis of the condition and because the Veteran does not have any functional impairment, the Board finds that the weight of the competent evidence does not demonstrate that service connection is warranted for a left ear condition. (Continued on the next page)   As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine does not apply and the claim must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. at 55-56. Steven D. Reiss Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Jacquelynn M. Jordan, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.