Citation Nr: 22016536 Decision Date: 03/22/22 Archive Date: 03/22/22 DOCKET NO. 15-33 185 DATE: March 22, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1984 to September 1986. The Veteran testified before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at an August 2018 Board hearing held via videoconference. The claims file contains a transcript of the hearing. The VLJ who held the hearing has since retired from the Board. Pursuant to controlling law, the Veteran was informed of this fact and was given the opportunity to request an additional Board hearing with another VLJ. The Veteran indicated in December 2021 that he did not want another hearing. Most recently, the Board denied the above claim in a September 2020 Board Decision. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), and the CAVC issued an order granting the parties' October 2021 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) to set aside the September 2020 Board Decision and remanded the case back to the Board for compliance with the JMR. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss, particularly including whether a compensable rating is warranted for alleged dizziness which the Veteran contends is associated with his service-connected bilateral hearing loss, because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran has dizziness associated with his bilateral hearing loss. See December 2021 Appellant's Brief (requesting that, if the Board does not grant the requested rating, the Board "remand for an examination that addresses the etiology of his dizziness"); see also October 2021 JMR (noting Board was required to address whether a VA examination and opinion are necessary to adequately address the Veteran's argument with respect to dizziness). The record contains the Veteran's testimony at his August 2018 Board Hearing that he had dizziness and was told by medical professionals at a 2011 audiological examination that the subjective dizziness he had was "one of the symptoms of hearing loss." Moreover, a 2007 VA examination indicates that the subjective dizziness reported by the Veteran "may be consistent with the Tullio effect which is sound induced dizziness." See also September 2011 VA Audiology Consult (indicating in a section labeled "changes in health and/or ear related conditions" that the Veteran report "[i]mbalance or unsteadiness spinning sensation that last[s] a few minutes when standing or moving very quickly."). This evidence is insufficient to decide the claim. For example, the 2007 VA examiner's statement is phrased in terms of "may" which is "too speculative to provide the degree of certainty for medical nexus evidence," see Bloom v. West, 12 Vet. App. 185, 187 (1999), and the 2011 treatment note does not clearly link the "imbalance or unsteadiness" to the service-connected condition rather than it is simply a "change[] in health" or an "ear-related condition" not associated with the service-connected hearing loss. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination. An audiological examination should be done to assess the current severity of his hearing loss. Then, the examiner should provide an opinion regarding whether, at any time from May 2014 to the present, the Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss was characterized by symptoms other than reduced hearing acuity, particularly including dizziness. It would be helpful if, in offering the above opinion, the examiner specifically discusses the 2007 VA examiner's statement regarding dizziness, the September 2011 VA audiological consult discussing imbalance or unsteadiness as either a "change[] in health" or an "ear-related condition", [see CAPRI records received 1/12/22 at pages 650-651] and the Veteran's August 2018 Board hearing testimony about worsening dizziness which he contends medical professionals related to his hearing loss. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Kerry Hubers 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.