Citation Nr: 20009904 Decision Date: 02/06/20 Archive Date: 02/05/20 DOCKET NO. 16-11 458A DATE: February 6, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to a service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s tinnitus is caused by his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for establishing service connection for tinnitus secondary to service-connected bilateral hearing loss have been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.012, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1962 to September 1966. The matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran was scheduled for a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge in February 2019 but withdrew his hearing request prior to the scheduled hearing. Service Connection for Tinnitus The Veteran asserts that the Veteran should be entitled to service connection for tinnitus as due to service or as due to secondary to his service-connected hearing loss. Generally, to establish service connection, a claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service, the so-called “nexus” requirement. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A disability that is proximately due to, the result of, or aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury shall be service connected. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. As to current disability, during the September 2013 VA examination, the Veteran reported not having recurrent tinnitus. However, a February 2016 private medical opinion includes a diagnosis of tinnitus. In a March 2016 statement, the Veteran explained his differing reports noting that his tinnitus is not always there and sometimes there are long spells where he does not have it. As the Veteran is competent to describe tinnitus and the Board sees no reason to question his credibility on this matter, the Board finds the Veteran has a current disability. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374-75 (2002). As to nexus, the Veteran submitted a February 2016 private medical opinion from an Ear, Nose, and Throat physician. The physician opined that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss would also cause ringing of the ears, and that as his occupation over his lifetime did not have noise exposure, the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were service-related. As the Veteran currently has service-connected bilateral hearing loss as result of his service and currently has tinnitus that has been linked to his hearing loss by his physician, with no conflicting opinion on this point, resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, service connection for tinnitus is granted on a secondary basis. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. REASONS FOR REMAND Remand as to the claim for a higher rating for hearing loss is necessary to obtain missing VA audiological testing results. Specifically, VA records show that audiometric testing was performed in May 2013 and May 2016 but puretone threshold results from those tests are not of record. Speech recognition scores are of record and show that the Maryland CNC test was not used in May 2016. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a). It is unclear from the record before the Board which speech discrimination word list was used in May 2013. Given these missing records, remand is necessary. It is noted that the record includes an undated private hearing test (submitted in May 2016), as well as private hearing test results from July 2010. Neither test report included speech recognition scores and the puretone thresholds do not show exceptional patterns of hearings. As a result, the reports are not adequate for rating purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a). This matter is REMANDED for the following action: Associate with the record the results of audiometric testing performed by VA in May 2013 and May 2016, to include puretone thresholds and speech recognition scores. Nathan Kroes Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. J. Kim, 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.