Citation Nr: 21070212 Decision Date: 11/23/21 Archive Date: 11/23/21 DOCKET NO. 17-23 609 DATE: November 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for vertigo is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from May 1956 to September 1959. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded the claim in November 2019, January 2021, and June 2021 for additional development. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900. 38 U.S.C. § 7107 (a)(2). 1. Entitlement to service connection for vertigo is remanded. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim, so that he is afforded every possible consideration. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c). Pursuant to the Board's January 2021 remand, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in February 2021. The opinion and supporting rationale were inadequate for adjudication of this claim. In that February 2021 opinion, the examiner concluded that it was less likely the Veteran's vertigo was related to service. In support of the opinion, the examiner referenced a January 2014 private medical record wherein the Veteran reported that his dizziness was a new problem. Based on this statement, the examiner concluded that the Veteran's vertigo is less likely than not a result of service. The examiner relied on the January 2014 statement without considering the Veteran's other statements of record concerning the onset of his vertigo symptoms. Specifically, a November 2011 private medical record showed that the Veteran presented with a complaint of dizziness. In June 2021, the Board remanded this claim for another examination or addendum opinion. In August 2021, the examiner offered an addendum opinion. The examiner again pointed to the January 2014 private medical record where the Veteran reported that his dizziness was a new problem, and concluded based on this that there was no reason to correlate the current symptoms to noise trauma because noise trauma would not cause vertigo half a century later. However, the examiner did not address earlier statements in record concerning the onset of the Veteran's vertigo complaints. Specifically, the Board points to an August 2007 notation showing three episodes of pre-syncope, and November 2011 notation showing complaints of dizziness. As the examiner again relied on the January 2014 statement without clearly considering earlier treatment notations of dizziness and/or pre-syncope in his medical opinion pursuant to the Board's directive, the claim must be remanded again. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination in connection with his vertigo disability. If at all possible, he should be examined by a VA examiner other than the prior examiner. The claims file, and a copy of this Remand, must be made available to the reviewing examiner. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran's vertigo is at least as likely as not related to related to service, including in-service noise exposure. The examination report must include a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. The examiner must address earlier statements in the record concerning the onset of the Veteran's vertigo complaints. The examiner is cautioned not to offer a negative opinion based solely on the lack of a diagnosed vertigo disability in the service treatment records. J. NICHOLS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Lauritzen, 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.