Citation Nr: 19124635 Decision Date: 04/02/19 Archive Date: 04/02/19 DOCKET NO. 17-49 476 DATE: April 2, 2019 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an ear disability, to include ear itching and increased ear serum, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service with the United States Air Force from June 2005 to March 2017. The Veteran is a Gulf War Era Veteran. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2017 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran’s claim has been expanded as reflected on the title page. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Entitlement to service connection for an ear disability, to include ear itching and increased ear serum, is remanded. The Veteran underwent VA examinations for eustachian tube dysfunction and skin diseases in January 2017. The examiner addressing eustachian tube dysfunction opined that the Veteran had never been diagnosed with an ear condition. The skin diseases examination noted that there was no pathology to render a diagnosis regarding the itching of the ears. The Board notes that the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for an ear disability in December 2016. At that time, the Veteran was seeking medical care for bilateral itching in the ear with high ear wax secretion; he complained of flaking skin in his ears post-service. See VA Treatment Records, dated June 2017; Service Treatment Records, dated December 2016. The Veteran’s medical history, while in service, included treatment for itching of the ears, to include using ear drops for treatment. See Service Treatment Records, dated October 2014, May 2014, October 2013, September 2013. The Veteran reported that this symptomatology has been continuous since service. See Notice of Disagreement, dated May 2017. The Veteran is competent to testify as to symptomatology, including the onset and duration thereof. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). Neither the evidence of treatment during service, nor the Veteran’s claims of continuing symptomatology, were considered during either VA examination. Therefore, the Board finds that this claim should be remanded for the Veteran to receive a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his ear disability. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Barr, 21 Vet. App. at 311. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for the disability on appeal. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorizations, the AOJ should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. The AOJ should also obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his ear disability, not to include hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran’s claims file, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examination report must reflect that such a review was undertaken. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail. (a.) Please identify each ear disability affecting the Veteran during the period on appeal. Please do not include or consider auditory disabilities, or tinnitus. (b.) The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s ear disability is causally related to the Veteran’s military service. The term “at least as likely as not” does not mean within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find favor of conclusion as it is to find against it). The Veteran is competent to attest to observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. (Continued on the Next Page) A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. E. Trotter, Associate Counsel