Citation Nr: 21014776 Decision Date: 03/15/21 Archive Date: 03/15/21 DOCKET NO. 18-26 461 DATE: March 15, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s tinnitus is related to his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. CONCLUSION OF LAW Tinnitus is proximately due to or the result of service-connected bilateral hearing loss. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1961 to September 1963. He also had service in the United States Navy Reserve. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Board remanded the above claim, as well as claims for service connection for left and right ear hearing loss for further development in August 2019. While the case was in remand status, the agency of original jurisdiction granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss in a July 2020 rating decision. The requested development was completed, and the case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. Law and Analysis Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. That an injury or disease occurred in service is not enough; there must be chronic disability resulting from that injury or disease. If there is no showing of a resulting chronic condition during service, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required to support a finding of chronicity. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. Service connection may also be granted on a secondary basis for disability which is proximately due to or the result of service-connected disease or injury, or for additional disability resulting from the aggravation of a nonservice-connected disability by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995) (en banc); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board concludes that service connection is warranted for tinnitus. The Veteran has contended that his tinnitus began during his military service, inasmuch as he was stationed on an aircraft carrier and would go up on deck and watch aircraft take off and land during his time off, causing his ears to ring. He has indicated that the tinnitus still exists today. VA has acknowledged this noise exposure. See, e.g., July 2020 rating decision (granting service connection for bilateral hearing loss); October 2016 claim and March 2017 written statement; February 2020 VA examination report. In addition, the February 2020 VA examination report shows that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of intermittent, recurrent tinnitus. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002) (noting that tinnitus is a type of disorder capable of lay observation and description); see also October 2016 claim and McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007) (requirement of current disability satisfied when claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or at any point during pendency of that claim). Thus, the remaining question is whether there is a relationship between his current tinnitus and in-service noise exposure and/or his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. To the extent that the Veteran has contended that he has experienced tinnitus that onset in service and has been continuous thereafter, his service treatment records do not document any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of tinnitus. He also denied having tinnitus during the February 2017 VA examination, then reported having constant tinnitus he first noticed in service during the December 2019 VA examination. Based on these inconsistencies, the Board finds that the Veteran’s statements are not reliable or credible evidence to establish a history of ongoing symptoms in or since service. The Board requested an additional VA examination and medical opinion because the February 2017 VA examiner provided an inadequate opinion that did not address the question of etiology as to the Veteran’s reported tinnitus in his claim. The December 2019 VA examiner was unable to provide an opinion because she was unable to open the service treatment records in the electronic claims file. The February 2020 VA examiner noted that the Veteran did have reports of some tinnitus during the appeal period; however, she determined that it was less likely than not that the disorder was incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. In so finding, she explained that research indicates that noise-induced tinnitus may be intermittent, but it will gradually become constant over time, which she noted did not match the Veteran’s reports as to the frequency and duration of his tinnitus throughout the claim. Nevertheless, the examiner also determined that if the Veteran did perceive any tinnitus, it was more likely than not secondary to his current hearing loss. The examiner reached this determination after consideration of other co-morbid conditions she noted that the Veteran has that are linked to tinnitus. She also noted earlier in the report that hearing loss is a cause of tinnitus. Based on the foregoing, the February 2020 VA examination report shows that the Veteran’s tinnitus is the result of his now-service connected bilateral hearing loss. See Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97, 106 (2012) (providing that an examination is not rendered inadequate where rationale provided by examiner “did not explicitly lay out the examiner’s journey from the facts to a conclusion”); Acevedo v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 286, 294 (2012) (stating that medical reports must be read as a whole and in context of evidence of record). Resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board concludes that service connection is warranted for tinnitus on a secondary basis. DUSTIN L. WARE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Postek, 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.