Citation Nr: 21068326 Decision Date: 11/10/21 Archive Date: 11/10/21 DOCKET NO. 17-46 173 DATE: November 10, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for vertigo claimed as chronic motion sickness is remanded. INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1970 to October 1973. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a July 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In a statement received on September 23, 2021, the Veteran informed the Board that he desired to withdraw his prior request for a Board hearing. He has not requested a new hearing, and as such, his prior request is deemed withdrawn. REASONS FOR REMAND The Board is of the opinion that additional development is required before the claim on appeal is decided. When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). To be considered adequate, a medical examination report must contain not only clear conclusions with supporting data, but also a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). The Board finds the July 2016 VA examination and corresponding medical opinion to be inadequate for the following reasons. First, the examiner stated the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of vertigo because there is no pathology to support such a diagnosis. However, in reaching this conclusion the examiner did not discuss the medical evidence in the record showing the Veteran was treated for vertigo in December 2012 and March 2016. Additionally, the VA examiner failed to address and discuss that the Veteran was treated for chronic motion sickness, dizzy spells, and vertigo while serving on active duty. In fact, the Veteran was administratively separated from the Navy as a result of his chronic motion sickness. As such, a remand is warranted to obtain an addendum VA examination and medical opinion to address the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed chronic motion sickness and vertigo. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following action: Afford the Veteran a VA examination by an examiner with sufficient expertise to determine the diagnosis and etiology of the Veteran's claimed vertigo and chronic motion sickness. All pertinent evidence of record should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. Following a review of the relevant records and lay statements, the examiner is asked to address the following: a) What, if any, diagnosis does the Veteran have related to his reports of chronic motion sickness and vertigo? In answering this question, the examiner should specifically discuss the Veteran's lay statements, relevant service treatment records, and his VA medical records for vertigo in December 2012 and March 2016. b) The examiner should also state whether the Veteran's claimed vertigo and chronic motion sickness condition at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) originated during his period of active service or is otherwise etiologically related to his active service, to include his claimed exposure to JP-5 jet fuel. c) If the examiner determines the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis related to his vertigo or chronic motion sickness, the examiner is asked to address whether it is at least as likely as not that his current symptoms of vertigo and motion sickness are the same as the symptoms he experienced during his active service, and if so, are his current symptoms related to his active service, to include his claimed exposure to JP-5 jet fuel? In addressing the above, the examiner is reminded that the Veteran is considered to be competent and credible in reporting symptoms that he experienced first-hand. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all proffered opinions. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Nestander, Jessica S. 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.