Bucklinger v. Brown — Board’s unsupported finding that tinnitus was caused by disease rather than acoustic trauma was clearly erroneous

The veteran sought a compensable rating for service-connected tinnitus. The Board denied the claim by concluding that the tinnitus was related to disease, specifically otitis externa, rather than acoustic trauma, and therefore did not satisfy the rating schedule’s criteria for a compensable evaluation. On appeal, the Court reviewed the evidentiary basis for that factual finding and the Board’s reasons or bases.

The Court held that there was no plausible basis in the record for the Board’s conclusion. The contemporaneous service records did not show that otitis externa caused tinnitus, and the Board’s statement that otitis externa is a disease that causes tinnitus was an unsupported medical inference. By contrast, the record included sworn testimony of in-service noise exposure and a VA audiological opinion indicating that the tinnitus was consistent with a history of noise exposure. Because the Board’s contrary finding lacked evidentiary support, the Court set it aside as clearly erroneous.

The Court reversed rather than remanding because no plausible basis existed for the Board to reach the same conclusion on remand. The Court did not decide the veteran’s constitutional challenge to the tinnitus rating regulation, resolving the appeal on the nonconstitutional ground that the Board’s factual finding could not stand. The practical effect was reversal and remand for assignment of a compensable rating under the tinnitus diagnostic code.

A Board factual finding will be set aside as clearly erroneous when the record contains no plausible evidentiary basis for the finding and the Board relies on unsupported medical judgment rather than independent medical evidence.

Advocates can use this case to challenge Board findings that rest on unsupported medical assumptions rather than actual medical evidence, especially in tinnitus rating cases involving acoustic trauma.

Bucklinger reinforces that the Board cannot substitute its own medical theory for record evidence. It also demonstrates that when the evidence points only one way, the Court may reverse outright instead of sending the case back for another round of factfinding.

Improper medical inference

A veteran with documented in-service noise exposure is denied a compensable tinnitus rating because the Board speculates that the ringing must be due to a non-traumatic ear condition, even though no medical opinion in the record actually says so.

Cite this case to argue that a Board etiology finding is clearly erroneous when it depends on unsupported medical reasoning, and to support reversal where the record cannot plausibly sustain the agency’s conclusion.