MÉNIÈRE'S SYNDROME (MÉNIÈRE'S DISEASE)

Summary

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1997 to December 2006. He filed a claim for service connection for Meniere's disease as secondary to his service-connected tinnitus, reporting frequent bouts of vertigo. A July 2024 VA examination confirmed a diagnosis of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, not Meniere's disease. The initial rating decision denied the claim, stating the Veteran did not have Meniere's disease and that vertigo is not caused by tinnitus. However, the decision failed to conduct development to determine the etiology of the vertigo. The Board noted that the Veteran also filed a separate claim for vertigo secondary to migraines, which was granted in February 2025. The Board recharacterized the current claim to reflect the diagnosed benign positional vertigo, finding that service connection for vertigo as secondary to migraines was warranted due to the AOJ's failure to conduct proper development on the initial claim. Therefore, service connection for vertigo is granted.

Rationale

Vertigo diagnosed; Secondary to migraines; AOJ failed to develop etiology

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037302
Decision Date: 04/21/26	Archive Date: 04/21/26

DOCKET NO. 250522-546367
DATE: April 21, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for benign positional vertigo (previously claimed as Meniere's disease) is granted. 

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's benign positional vertigo (vertigo) is due to his service-connected migraines. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for vertigo as secondary to migraines have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1997 to December 2006. 

In the May 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the October 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. 

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

1. Service connection for vertigo is granted.

In July 2024, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for Meniere's disease as secondary to his service-connected tinnitus. He stated, I get frequent bouts of vertigo which seem to follow loud ringing tones in my ears." Later that month, the Veteran attended a VA examination at which his May 2023 diagnosis of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo was confirmed; he was not diagnosed with Meniere's disease. 

In the October 2024 rating decision on appeal, the AOJ denied the Veteran's claim finding that he was not diagnosed with Meniere's disease. The AOJ also noted that "tinnitus is often a symptom of benign positional vertigo and Meniere's disease, however benign positional vertigo is not caused by tinnitus." Notably, the AOJ did not undertake development to determine the etiology of the Veteran's vertigo. 

Generally, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. Service connection may also be granted on a secondary basis for a disability if it is due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a). Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) a current disability exists and (2) the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995) (en banc).

To begin, the Board notes that Meniere's disease and vertigo are both conditions of the ear. The Veteran, a lay person, is not competent to diagnose his own ear disability.  As such, the Board has expanded the scope of his claim and recharacterized it to reflect his current diagnosed disability, as shown above. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). 

Notably, the record reflects that the Veteran filed an October 23, 2024 claim for service connection for vertigo as secondary to migraines. His claim was granted in a February 2025 rating decision. However, because the AOJ failed to expand the scope of the Veteran's initial July 2024 ear disability claim and conduct the appropriate development, the Board finds that service connection for vertigo is warranted in connection with that claim. 

Accordingly, the claim is granted. 

 

 

MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Graison-McBride, Kimberly F.

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
2024 claim for service connection for vertigo as secondary to migraines. His claim was granted in a February 2025 rating decision. However, because the AOJ failed to expand the scope of the Veteran's initial July 2024 ear disability claim and conduct the appropriate development, the Board finds that service connection for vertigo is warranted in connection with that claim. 

Accordingly, the claim is granted. 

 

 

MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Graison-McBride, Kimberly F.

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.