Citation Nr: 21012931 Decision Date: 03/08/21 Archive Date: 03/08/21 DOCKET NO. 14-16 431 DATE: March 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for Meniere’s disease is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s Meniere’s disease is related to active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for Meniere’s disease have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1999 to July 2003. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2014 rating decision by the Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Veteran presented testimony at a Board hearing in August 2017. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the Veteran’s claims folder. This case was previously before the Board in May 2018, on which occasion the claim was remanded. Entitlement to service connection for Meniere’s disease The Veteran asserts that Meniere’s disease is related to service. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current disability that is related to active duty service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The VA is required to give “due consideration” to “all pertinent medical and lay evidence” in evaluating a claim for disability. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Nothing in the regulatory or statutory provisions require both medical and competent lay evidence. Indeed, competent lay evidence can be sufficient in and of itself to substantiate a disability claim. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). When evaluating lay evidence, the Board must consider if the witness is competent to report the evidence. A lay person is competent to report information when they have knowledge of the facts or circumstances they are reporting. 38 C.F.R. § 3159(a)(2). While a lay person is not competent to report information that requires specialized education, training, or experience, 38 C.F.R. § 3159(a)(2), they are competent to report a contemporaneous medical diagnosis. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Should the Board determine that the lay evidence is competent, the Board must determine whether it is also credible. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994) (Credibility is a factual determination going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted). After the Board has made competence and credibility determinations, it must evaluate the evidence. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). In doing so, the Board may favor one medical opinion over another. See D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 107 (2008). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. If the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the claim is to be denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). An October 2020 VA examination shows the Veteran has a current diagnosis of Meniere’s disease. (10/27/2020, C&P Exam, p. 3). Thus, the first element of service connection is established. The Board will next consider whether there is evidence of an in-service incurrence of the Veteran’s Meniere’s disease. In this regard, the Veteran provided lay evidence indicating that he suffered a head injury while attempting to “secure a load to a hovering helicopter.” (8/23/2017, Correspondence, p. 2). Similarly, during an August 2017 Board hearing the Veteran again indicated that he suffered a head injury while “helping [to] secure a load” to a helicopter. (8/23/2017, Hearing Transcript, p. 8). The Veteran also provided a statement from a friend who was assigned to the same unit as him at the time of the head injury. The friend indicated that he observed the Veteran “trying to attach a supply load to the underside of a hovering helicopter,” when he was struck by the helicopter. (10/27/2020, C&P Exam, p. 1). The Board finds that the lay evidence submitted by the Veteran is sufficient to establish that he suffered an in-service head injury. While the service treatment records do not establish that he received treatment for a head injury, the Veteran did provide competent lay evidence of a head injury. Moreover, the Board finds that the lay evidence is credible as there are multiple corroborating statements regarding the injury. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran did not endorse suffering a previous head injury during his separation examination, which tends to suggest that the lay evidence is not credible. However, given the multiple corroborating lay statements, the Board finds that the evidence is in relative equipoise as to this point. Thus, the Board finds in favor of the Veteran, and finds that the statements are credible. Finally, the Board finds that the statements are probative. As such, the Board concludes that the lay statements provided by the Veteran are sufficient to establish in-service occurrence of a head injury. The Board will next consider whether the current disability is related to service. In a July 2016 VA medical opinion, a VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s Meniere’s disease is less likely than not related to his left ear hearing loss. In rendering her opinion, the examiner noted that he “has other risk factors” for Meniere’s disease, including “post-service head-trauma.” The examiner specifically noted that the Veteran suffered a head injury after falling out of a truck in 2006, after his period of active duty service. The examiner also noted that the onset of his symptoms occurred after the 2006 injury. (7/7/2016, C&P Exam, p. 2). In an October 2020 VA medical opinion, a VA examiner opined that “Meniere’s disease was incurred during the [V]eteran’s period of active service . . ..” In rendering her opinion, the examiner noted the lay evidence provided by the Veteran indicating that he suffered head injuries during service. Further, the examiner noted that the Veteran had documented left ear hearing loss at the time of his separation examination. (10/27/2020, C&P Exam, p. 2). (Continued on the next page)   In a November 2020 opinion, a VA examiner opined that Meniere’s disease is less likely than not related to hypertension. In rendering her opinion, the examiner noted that dizziness began after the aforementioned 2006 head injury. (11/20/2020, C&P Exam, p. 3). However, the Board assigns little probative value to this opinion, as the examiner does not address the Veteran’s adverse reaction to Lisinopril. (9/28/2006, CAPRI, p. 5). Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s current Meniere’s disease arose in service. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for Meniere’s disease is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Glenn, 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.