BVA Case 24-0052: Back

The appellant argues that the Board erred by relying on June 2022 and January 2023 medical opinions,which were inadequate because the examiners did not address his lay statements regarding his in-service ear discomfort and in-service heavy lifting,and because the examiners' rationale as to the relationship between hearing loss and tinnitus was contradictory.

The appellant also argues that by relying on the inadequate medical opinions the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for finding that VA satisfied its duty to assist him with his claim.

The appellant additionally asserts that the Board erred by failing to ensure substantial compliance with its December 2021 remand order when it failed to obtain medical opinions addressing his lay statements.

The appellant argues that the Board failed to address the reasonably raised issue whether the onset of tinnitus within 6 months of his separation from service reflected the onset of hearing loss at that time.

Case:24-52 Page: 2 of 12 Filed:07/09/2025 The Secretary concedes that the Board erred when it failed to ensure that VA satisfied its duty to assist the appellant by obtaining adequate VA medical opinions for the right ankle and right shoulder disabilities.

The Secretary acknowledges that the June 2022,December 2022, and January 2023 medical opinions of record did not consider the appellant's lay statements of in-service heavy lifting.

st found that auditory damage and hearing loss were not conceded based on noise alone[,]therefore a nexus is not established.

The Board found substantial compliance with the December 2021 remand directives.