Citation Nr: 20012349 Decision Date: 02/13/20 Archive Date: 02/13/20 DOCKET NO. 17-62 269A DATE: February 13, 2020 ORDER Service connection for chronic nausea and dizziness, claimed as chronic sea sickness, to include as secondary to bilateral hearing loss, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s chronic nausea and dizziness is not related to service or a service-connected disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for chronic nausea and dizziness, claimed as sea sickness, to include as secondary to bilateral hearing loss, are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.655. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1951 to July 1956. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. This matter was previously before the Board in October 2019. At that time, the Board remanded the claim in order to obtain updated VA and private treatment records and provide the Veteran with a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his condition. The record reflects that the Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination on December 11, 2019 but failed to appear. The record also reflects that the RO requested authorizations from the Veteran to obtain private treatment records and the Veteran did not respond to the request. Updated VA treatment records were added to the file. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the prior remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c). The Veteran’s Contentions The Veteran contends that he experienced sea sickness in service and the symptoms have persisted. Service connection for chronic nausea and dizziness, claimed as sea sickness, to include as secondary to bilateral hearing loss As noted, the Veteran failed to appear for his December 2019 VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his chronic nausea and dizziness. In addition, the Veteran has not responded to requests for authorizations, to specifically include an October 2019 correspondence sent pursuant to the Board’s October 2019 remand requesting authorizations to obtain private treatment records. The duty to assist “is not always a one-way street." Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). The Veteran has an obligation to assist in the adjudication of his claim by cooperating with VA efforts to provide an adequate medical examination and submitting all medical evidence supporting his claim. Olson v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 480, 483 (1992). The Veteran has not provided good cause, or any cause, for his failure to appear for the December 2019 examination or to provide the requested authorizations. In view of the forgoing, the Board concludes that there is no duty to attempt to provide another examination or medical opinion with respect to the claims denied herein, and that an additional remand is not required to comply with the holding of Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999) (remand not required under Stegall where the Board's remand instructions were substantially complied with), aff'd, Dyment v. Principi, 287 F.3d 1377 (2002). Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a), when entitlement to a benefit cannot be established without a current VA examination or reexamination and a claimant, without good cause, fails to report for such examination or reexamination, action shall be taken in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b) or (c), as appropriate. As relevant here, 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b) provides that when a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with an original compensation claim, the claim shall be evaluated based on the evidence of record. The Board finds that upon review and consideration of the Veteran’s service treatment records, VA treatment records, private treatment records, the Veteran’s lay statements and testimony, and the Veteran’s failure to report for a VA examination, the evidence has not established a link between the Veteran’s current chronic nausea and dizziness and his military service or a service-connected disability. Based on the failure to report for the VA examination, the only nexus evidence of record is a January 2015 letter from the Veteran’s private treating physician noting that the Veteran has damage to his inner ear as part of his hearing loss and has associated symptoms, including “vertigo with chronic nausea made worse with motion.” This evidence lacks probative value to make a favorable finding concerning the etiology of the Veteran’s chronic nausea and dizziness because it is merely a conclusion unsupported by a rationale. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Although the Veteran is competent to report lay observable symptoms such as nausea and dizziness, there is no evidence that he is medically qualified to render an etiological opinion for those conditions. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In the absence of competent, probative nexus evidence, the Board finds that a preponderance of evidence is against the claim and, accordingly, service connection for chronic nausea and dizziness must be denied. As the preponderance of evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. S.C. KREMBS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Snyder, 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.