Citation Nr: 23006830 Decision Date: 02/02/23 Archive Date: 02/02/23 DOCKET NO. 18-31 796 DATE: February 2, 2023 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for vertigo is denied. FINDING OF FACT Vertigo did not manifest during service and is etiologically not related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Vertigo did not manifest during service and is unrelated to service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps (USMC) from July 1980 to September 1980, and in the United States Navy (USN) from January 1981 to January 1985. This matter comes to the Board on appeal from a Regional Office (RO) rating decision dated in October 2017. In July 2019 the Board remanded the issue for further development. Entitlement to service connection for vertigo. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. This may be accomplished by affirmatively showing inception or aggravation during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also be granted for disability shown after service, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, shows that it was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The Veteran contends that he has vertigo due to service. See, e.g., September 2017 claim. Service treatment records show that in February 1981 the Veteran complained of dizziness, the assessment was upper respiratory infection. In April 1983 the Veteran complained of a left ear problem and the assessment was otitis externa. In May 1983 the Veteran complained of left ear pain and the assessment was external otitis. The January 1985 separation examination did not show ear problems to include symptoms of vertigo. The Veteran's ears were evaluated as normal. VA treatment records in February 2001 show that the Veteran complained of dizziness, his diagnoses included alcohol dependence in partial remission and major depressive disorder. In a VA opinion in April 2018, it was noted that service treatment records on May 23, 1983 show left ear treatment as well as treatment for the left ear on April 14, 1983, and dizziness on February 23, 1981. The examiner opined that it is less likely than not that vertigo was incurred in or caused by service based on the rationale that the Veteran in 1981 and 1983 was treated for self-limiting otitis external, which resolved. The examiner noted that the Veteran was contending that vertigo was related to his traumatic brain injury during service but records are silent as to this incident. The examiner further stated that the vertigo symptoms that the Veteran was describing are possibly related to his psychiatric and chemical dependency history that is well documented. However, the Board notes that the Veteran is not service connected for a psychiatric disorder nor a traumatic brain injury. In a decision in July 2019 the Board denied reopening the Veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for depression and brain damage. On VA ear examination in April 2018, the examiner indicated that the Veteran had a diagnosis of vertigo, however the examiner concluded that for the claimed condition of vertigo there was no diagnosis because there was no pathology to render a diagnosis. In the July 2019 remand, the Board found that the April 2018 VA examination was inadequate to decide the claim as the Board found that it was internally inconsistent. Thus, the Board remanded the issue in order for the Veteran to be afforded a new VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any current vertigo. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) subsequently scheduled the Veteran for a VA examination in February 2020. Documentation in the file shows that the Veteran failed to report for the VA examination. The AOJ in a July 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case also noted that the Veteran failed to report for the scheduled VA examination. The Board emphasizes that the duty to assist a claimant is not a one-way street, and in this case the Veteran has failed to cooperate in the development of his claim. Olsen v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 480 (1992); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 406 (1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. When entitlement or continued entitlement to a benefit cannot be established or confirmed without a current VA examination or reexamination and a claimant, without good cause, fails to report for such examination, or reexamination, action shall be taken in accordance with the type of claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a). When a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with an original compensation claim, the claim shall be rated based on the evidence of record. When the examination was scheduled in conjunction, with any other original claim, a reopened claim for a benefit which was previously disallowed, or a claim for increase, the claim shall be denied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). As the issue on appeal is an original compensation claim it needs to be decided based on the evidence of record. There is no medical opinion relating the Veteran's claimed vertigo to service. As a lay person, the Veteran is competent to report symptoms pertaining to his claimed vertigo. Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), as to the specific issue in this case, the etiology of vertigo falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n. 4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This is not the type of condition that is readily amenable to mere lay diagnosis or probative comment regarding its etiology. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Veteran has not been shown to possess the requisite medical training, expertise, or credentials needed to render a diagnosis or a competent opinion as to medical causation. Nothing in the record demonstrates that he received any special training or acquired any medical expertise in evaluating such condition. Accordingly, the lay evidence does not constitute competent medical evidence and lacks probative value. As the lay evidence is not competent, the matter of whether it is credible is not reached. Thus, for the above reasons the evidence is persuasively against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not for application, and the claim of service connection for vertigo must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Thomas H. O'Shay Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Mac, M. 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.