Citation Nr: 21077463 Decision Date: 12/29/21 Archive Date: 12/29/21 DOCKET NO. 13-28 881 DATE: December 29, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty military service from January 1971 to September 1972, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2011 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The issue of service connection for tinnitus was denied by the Board in a November 2020 decision, which also denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and remanded other matters of service connection for acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a liver disability, to include hepatitis C, cirrhosis of the liver, and liver cancer, and hypertension, to include as secondary to acquired psychiatric disability. The Veteran appealed only the Board's denial of service connection for tinnitus to the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran's Claims (Court). The other matters were not before the Court, having either been remanded by the Board or were not appealed by the Veteran. An August 2021 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) vacated the denial of service connection for tinnitus and returned the matter to the Board for further action. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a hearing held at the RO in September 2018. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. Service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The August 2021 JMPR determined that the Board erred in its November 2020 decision when it relied on an October 2017 VA examination report (received February 2018 into the claims file) that was inadequate for decision-making purposes, and failed to satisfy the duty to assist. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A. Specifically, the Court found that the examiner, in providing a negative nexus opinion, did not properly address noise exposure and whether tinnitus was related to such exposure. It was pointed out by the JMPR that the examiner did not address whether Veteran's tinnitus was related to the reported weapon fire, helicopter noise, and bomb explosions reportedly experienced during his service in Vietnam without hearing protection, as listed in the examination's history of military noise exposure. Instead the examiner opined, without regard to the reported noise exposure, that the Veteran's tinnitus was less likely than not due to his military service because his occupation was a clerk/typist which has a low probability of noise exposure. As pointed out by the JMPR, an addendum opinion is necessary on remand which properly addresses whether Appellant's tinnitus is related to the reported exposure to weapons fire, helicopter noise, and bomb explosions. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Forward the record and a copy of this Remand to the October 2017 audiological examiner or, if that examiner is unavailable, to another suitably qualified VA clinician, for completion of an addendum opinion. The examiner must review the entire record and consider the Veteran's lay statements, to include his hearing testimony regarding such exposure, as well as the history of military noise exposure given in the October 2017 VA examination. The examiner is asked to opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus was incurred in or caused by service, specifically to include noise exposure. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all conclusions reached. The examiner must address the Veteran's reported exposure to weapons fire, helicopter noise, and bomb explosions without hearing protection while serving his MOS as a clerk typist in Vietnam. The examiner is asked to provide an explanation using medical principles where possible. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Eckart 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.