Citation Nr: 22019541 Decision Date: 04/01/22 Archive Date: 04/01/22 DOCKET NO. 19-26 666 DATE: April 1, 2022 REMANDED Service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. Service connection for vertigo (now to include Meniere's disease) is remanded. Service connection for hypertension is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1978 to August 1982. These matters are on appeal from a December 2018 rating decision. In February 2021, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is part of the evidentiary record. Although the Board regrets the delay, a remand is required for further development and readjudication. Initially, the Board notes that it has recharacterized the issue of service connection for vertigo to include Meniere's disease. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 7 (2009). The record reflects the Veteran is in receipt of Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits. No requests to obtain these records have been made by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Given that these records may be relevant to the Veteran's claims, attempts to obtain them must be made on remand. See Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363 (1992). With respect to his claims for service connection for hearing loss and vertigo (now to include Meniere's disease), the Veteran has claimed these are due to exposure to acoustic trauma during service. See February 2021 Hearing Transcript. The Veteran was a heavy vehicle mechanic during service, and therefore, the Board finds his claimed acoustic trauma is consistent with his duties during active service. The Veteran was afforded a September 2018 VA audiology examination, and the examiner provided a negative opinion reasoning that the Veteran did not have any hearing loss during or at separation from service. As the absence of in-service evidence of hearing loss is not fatal to a claim for service connection, this opinion is inadequate and a new one must be obtained. See Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992); see also Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). The Veteran has never been afforded an examination to determine the etiology of his claim for vertigo (now to include Meniere's disease), and because the low-threshold warranting examinations are met, this must be accomplished on remand. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2006). Finally, the Veteran testified at his hearing that he receives medical treatment through private and VA providers. On remand, all outstanding VA treatment records must be obtained and associated with the evidence of record before the Board. See Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). The Veteran and his representative have the right to submit additional evidence (to include private treatment records) and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. See Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Make all attempts in accordance with VA regulation to obtain the Veteran's Social Security Administration disability benefit records. If these records are unavailable or it is determined that further attempts to obtain them would be futile, the AOJ must prepare a Memorandum of Formal Finding of Unavailability outlining all steps taken to attempt to obtain these records and associate it with the claims file. 2. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment records and associate them with the evidentiary record. 3. Following completion of step 1, afford the Veteran the appropriate examinations to determine the etiology of his bilateral hearing loss and vertigo. The examiner must obtain from the Veteran and record in the examination report a complete description regarding the onset and continuity of symptoms. After performing examinations, reviewing the record, and with consideration of the Veteran's lay statements, the examiner is requested to provide the following opinions: (a) Determine whether the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability began during or is related to his active duty service. Why or why not? (b) Determine whether the Veteran had a bilateral ear hearing loss disability (as defined by VA regulation) within one year of his separation from active duty service (by August 1983). Why or why not? (c) Determine whether the Veteran has a diagnosis of Meniere's disease. Why or why not? If the answer to (d) is in the affirmative, determine (i) Whether the Meniere's disease began during or is related to the Veteran's active duty service. Why or why not? (ii) Whether the Meniere's disease manifested within one year of his separation from active duty service (by August 1983). Why or why not? (d) Determine whether the Veteran has vertigo which began during or is related to active duty service. Why or why not? If, and only if, the examiner determines the Veteran's vertigo is due to an "organic disease of the nervous system," then determine whether the vertigo manifested within one year of his separation from active duty service (by August 1983). Why or why not? The examiner is informed of the following: The Veteran's exposure to acoustic trauma during service has been conceded and the examiner must consider this in the opinions. Any negative opinion based solely on findings that the Veteran did not have a diagnosed disability during active duty and/or a lack of in-service treatment and/or complaints will be deemed inadequate. A positive opinion does not require certainty. Rather, if the weight of the evidence is in approximate balance for and against a nexus, the clinician should make a determination favorable to the Veteran. A complete rationale for each opinion is required. Citation to accepted medical literature and/or principles would be of great assistance to the Board. If any examiner is unable to provide any opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she must explain why this is so. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board O'Connell, Jessica L. 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.