context: The examiner's reasoning sets up a perceived credibility issue that relates to both tinnitus and hearing loss, which is for the Board to resolve. The examiner's perceived lack of information requires a response by the Board. Moreover, it is unclear from the Board's statement of reasons or bases whether the record and the appellant's initial claim raised the issue of entitlement to benefits for tinnitus.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 21 Vet.App. 545, 552
citation_a.parenthetical: Board required to consider all issues raised by the claimant or by evidence of record
citation_a.sentence: See Clemons, 23 Vet.App. at 3 (stating that a claimant has no special medical expertise, but may testify as to symptoms he can observe, and holding that the Board may not deny a claim for benefits based on one condition when the evidence submitted and developed during the processing of the claim showed that the claimant’s symptoms emanated from another condition); see also Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet.App. 545, 552 (2008) (Board required to consider all issues raised by the claimant or by evidence of record). Therefore, the Court will remand this matter for the Board to weigh all the evidence of onset of the appellant’s tinnitus and make a factfinding, with due regard for the benefit of the doubt provision, as to that matter.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 23 Vet.App. 3, 3
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that a claimant has no special medical expertise, but may testify as to symptoms he can observe, and holding that the Board may not deny a claim for benefits based on one condition when the evidence submitted and developed during the processing of the claim showed that the claimant's symptoms emanated from another condition
citation_b.sentence: See Clemons, 23 Vet.App. at 3 (stating that a claimant has no special medical expertise, but may testify as to symptoms he can observe, and holding that the Board may not deny a claim for benefits based on one condition when the evidence submitted and developed during the processing of the claim showed that the claimant’s symptoms emanated from another condition); see also Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet.App. 545, 552 (2008) (Board required to consider all issues raised by the claimant or by evidence of record). Therefore, the Court will remand this matter for the Board to weigh all the evidence of onset of the appellant’s tinnitus and make a factfinding, with due regard for the benefit of the doubt provision, as to that matter.