14-19 077, 14-19 077

Veteran served on active duty from Sept 5, 1972 to Sept 22, 1972 and appealed VA RO decisions denying service connection for a deviated septum (claimed as fractured nose) and chronic ear infections with drainage and loss of smell/taste.
February 2016 Board remand required collection of outstanding VA treatment records (pre-Nov 22, 2011 and since Feb 8, 2013) and VA examinations addressing nexus to service, including veteran statements of being struck in the nose with a boot and experiencing ear popping/blocked ears after flight.
RO obtained some records in April 2016, but Northern Arizona Health Care System records from Feb 2013–Mar 2016 were scanned blank and no records pre-November 2011 were obtained.
May 2016 VA examinations opined “less likely than not” that conditions were service connected, relying chiefly on absence of contemporaneous service treatment records and discounting veteran lay statements.
June 2016 private opinion from Dr. N.T. supported a link between service nasal trauma and anosmia but lacked specific factual basis, file review, or reasoned rationale.
Board found VA examiner opinions inadequate for relying solely on absence of records and for failing to properly consider lay evidence; remanded for further development (records retrieval and a new, fully reasoned VA medical opinion that reviews the claims file and addresses Dr. T.’s opinion).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Service connection for deviated septum (claimed fractured nose)	Veteran: nose trauma in service (struck with boot) caused nasal disorder; lay statements of symptoms	VA: no contemporaneous service treatment records; less likely than not related	Remand — develop missing VA records and obtain new VA opinion that reviews file, considers lay statements and private opinion, and gives a reasoned nexus rationale
Service connection for chronic ear infections with drainage and loss of smell/taste	Veteran: ear symptoms (popping/blocked ears) after flight and linked to nasal trauma in service	VA: no supporting service records; opinion against nexus based on absence of documentation	Remand — same development and new VA opinion required addressing nexus, reviewing records and private medical opinion, and explaining any discounting of lay statements

Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (2006) (lay evidence can be competent to establish presence of a disability even without contemporaneous medical records)
Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994) (lay evidence may establish features or symptoms of injury or illness)
Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007) (medical examiner may not ignore veteran's lay assertions of in-service injury)
Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (Board must ensure compliance with its remand instructions)
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999) (remand is a preliminary order; claimant may submit additional evidence while case is pending RO development)