Citation Nr: 21002581 Decision Date: 01/14/21 Archive Date: 01/14/21 DOCKET NO. 18-15 892 DATE: January 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left ear impairment is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1982 to June 1982. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Under Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), VA must liberally interpret a veteran’s characterization of his or her disability when a broad interpretation is more favorable to the veteran. Here, although the Veteran originally claimed entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss, the evidence of record indicated additional ear conditions. Therefore, the Board has expanded and recharacterized the Veteran’s claim, as reflected on the title page. In May 2019, the Board denied service connection for left ear hearing loss. Thereafter, the Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a July 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMR), the Secretary of VA and the Veteran (the parties) moved the Court to vacate the May 2019 decision as to the denial of service connection for left ear hearing loss. The Court granted the JMR in a July 2020 order. As such, the matter is back before the Board. The Board notes that the May 2019 rating decision also remanded issues of entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability, hemorrhoids, and residuals of a partial hysterectomy. During the course of the appeal, in a May 2020 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for right foot plantar fasciitis, hemorrhoids, and residuals of a partial hysterectomy. The grants of service connection represent the full benefit sought on appeal and the matters are no longer for appellate consideration. Entitlement to service connection for a left ear impairment is remanded. As noted above, the Court granted a JMR and vacated the Board’s decision as to its denial of entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss. The parties determined that the Board erred when it failed to broaden the scope of the Veteran’s claim and address whether the Veteran’s Meniere’s syndrome and vertigo were etiologically related to service. The Board notes that while the Veteran has been afforded VA examinations for her hearing loss, she has yet to be afforded a VA examination that addresses her Meniere’s syndrome or vertigo. VA is obliged to provide an examination or obtain a medical opinion in a claim of service connection when the record contains competent evidence that the veteran has a current disability or signs and symptoms of a current disability, the record indicates that the disability or signs and symptoms of disability may be associated with active service, and the record does not contain sufficient information to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The threshold for finding a link between current disability and service is low. Locklear v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 410 (2006); McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 83. As there are diagnoses of record and some evidence of an etiological link to service or service-connected hearing loss, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine if her Meniere’s syndrome and vertigo are etiologically linked to active duty or to a service connected disability. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for her left ear impairment. The examiner must review the claims file. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: a) Is the Veteran’s left ear impairment, to include Meniere’s syndrome and vertigo, at least as likely as not related to service? Please provide a rationale to support the opinion. b) Is the Veteran’s left ear impairment, to include Meniere’s syndrome and vertigo, at least as likely as not proximately due to her service-connected right ear hearing loss? Please provide a rationale to support the opinion. c) Is the Veteran’s left ear impairment, to include Meniere’s syndrome and vertigo, at least as likely as not aggravated, i.e., worsened beyond its natural progression, by her service-connected right ear hearing loss? Please provide a rationale to support the opinion. (Continued on the next page)   2. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the Veteran’s claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and her attorney a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and return the case to the Board. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Silverblatt, 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.