Citation Nr: 22005447 Decision Date: 02/01/22 Archive Date: 02/01/22 DOCKET NO. 19-38 697 DATE: February 1, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably in the United States Army on active duty from October 1963 to September 1965. This appeal originates from the Veteran's disagreement with an August 2018 Rating Decision of the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which is the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). In a March 2020 decision (Board Decision) the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) affirmed the denial the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss (BHL) and tinnitus. The Veteran appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC or Court). In June 2021 the Court issued a decision which affirmed the denial of service connection for BHL but vacated that part of the Board Decision which denied service connection for tinnitus and remanded the matter back to the Board for further adjudication. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c); 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The Veteran has a currently diagnosed disability of tinnitus. The Court held that the Board's statement of reasons or bases was insufficient and, therefore, inadequate to support its denial of service connection for tinnitus. The Court found the July 2018 VA examiner's "single sentence negative medical nexus opinion" to be an improper conclusory opinion and that the Board was in error to rely on this opinion as a basis for its denial. The Court stated that for a medical opinion to be adequate, the examiner must review the veteran's medical records and describe a disability in enough detail to fully inform the Board's final decision. See CAVC Decision, page 5. Further, an examiner must support their conclusion with an analysis which the Board can "consider and weigh against contrary opinions." Nohr v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 124, 132 (2014); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 395 (2008). Specifically, the Court found that the July 2018 VA examiner gave a negative nexus opinion and based this opinion on the rationale that the Veteran's "tinnitus is at least as likely as not... a symptom associated with the hearing loss, as tinnitus is known to be a symptom associated with hearing loss." See CAVC Decision, page 5. The Court found this opinion to be problematic as the examiner failed to provide any detail in terms of whether the Veteran's tinnitus was related to service on a direct basis as opposed to as secondary to any hearing loss disability from which appellant suffers. Id. Finally, the Court found that because the examiner did not provide an opinion related to direct service connection, the examiner's opinion could not fully inform the Board on that theory of entitlement. Id., page 6. Based on the Court's decision and findings, the Board in turn finds that remand to the RO for an addendum opinion which addresses the errors and inadequacies identified by the Court is needed. The Veteran has a right to submit additional evidence and/or arguments in support of his claim. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369, 372 (1999) (per curiam order). This matter is to be afforded expeditious treatment. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion on the cause and etiology of the Veteran's tinnitus, in accordance with the directives in the CAVC Decision and this Remand. Additional in-person examination or diagnostic testing of the Veteran is not requested unless indicated by the examiner. The examiner is directed to review and acknowledge review of the Veteran's entire file in conjunction with authoring the opinions requested herein. After review of the Veteran's file the examiner should: (a.) Provide an addendum opinion describing the etiology and pathophysiology of the Veteran's tinnitus, including whether it: (i) was caused by or related to any active duty incident, injury, illness, or disease or other service related incident or injury, on a direct service connection basis; (ii) whether his tinnitus manifested within a year of his separation from active service; and (iii) whether his tinnitus is etiologically related to any other condition or disability the Veteran has, specifically including his bilateral hearing loss, whether or not service connected, on a secondary service connection basis. The examiner(s) is asked to explain the reasons behind any opinions expressed and conclusions reached which includes a summary of the facts relied on and the analysis used to reach the expressed opinion(s). In developing the requested opinions, the examiner must address the Veteran's lay testimony concerning the history and manifestations of his symptoms related to this condition and he is to be considered competent in these statements. If the examiner discredits any of the Veteran's statements, he or she must be explained why. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Bannach 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.