Citation Nr: 20043720 Decision Date: 06/29/20 Archive Date: 06/29/20 DOCKET NO. 14-40 699 DATE: June 29, 2020 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1955 to September 1959. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing in March 2018. The Board previously remanded the issue for further development in May 2018. The case has now been returned to the Board for appellate review. Subsequent to the May 2018 Board remand, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss in a July 2019 rating decision. The Board notes that the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 in October 2019, stating that he disagreed with the decisions for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus rendered in a March 2012 rating decision. In May 2020, the Board notified the Veteran that his October 2019 VA Form 10182 was not accepted because the rating decision he contested in the form was prior to February 19, 2019, the effective date of the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). To appeal the effective date or other matters related to the July 2019 rating action granting service connection and a 10 percent rating, a timely VA Form 10182 or a supplemental claim must be filed. The issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus remains in the legacy appeal system and is addressed herein. The issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The VA treatment records obtained pursuant to the May 2018 Board remand indicate that the Veteran denied having tinnitus on at least two occasions. A June 2004 VA otolaryngology note indicates that the Veteran reported bilateral hearing loss for the past several years, which was gradually worsening. The clinician noted that the Veteran had no tinnitus. Moreover, a July 2004 VA audiology consult indicates that the Veteran complained decreased hearing bilaterally. The clinician noted that he had experienced noise exposure on the ship while in service and some noise at work around construction sites. The clinician also noted he denied tinnitus bilaterally and also denied history of ear pathology, ear surgery, otalgia, or otorrhea. A February 2012 VA examination reveals that the Veteran did not report tinnitus at the examination. The Veteran’s lay statements, to include his testimony in a March 2018 Board hearing transcript, indicate that he did not realize what was going on until years post-service when he was told about the symptom of tinnitus. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in June 2019. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was at least as likely as not caused by his military service. And the examiner opined that his tinnitus was less likely than not caused by the military exposure. The rationale was that the reported onset was post separation. There is no opinion for service connection for tinnitus secondary to bilateral hearing loss. Since tinnitus may be associated with hearing loss, the AOJ must obtain an addendum medical opinion addressing whether the Veteran’s tinnitus was at least as likely as not proximately due to or made worse by service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s tinnitus was at least as likely as not proximately due to, the result of, or aggravated beyond its natural progression by service-connected bilateral hearing loss. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Y. Taylor, 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.