Hearing loss decisions — 2000

The Board has denied the appellant's claims for evaluations of his bilateral hearing loss, right knee disability, and left wrist ganglion cyst. The right knee disability is currently rated at 10 percent disabling.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations for hearing loss and tinnitus were denied as the current ratings of 10 percent are considered to be the maximum allowable under VA regulations.

The VA Regional Office denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss, concluding that his condition was not related to his military service.

The Board denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder and ear disability, including hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that the disorders were not incurred in or aggravated by military service.

The veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions were denied. The claim for a psychiatric disorder was reopened, but the new evidence did not establish service connection. Claims for lung, low back, hearing loss, tinnitus, irritable bowel syndrome, and carbon tetrachloride exposure were also denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's right ear hearing loss warrants a maximum 10 percent evaluation under the applicable rating criteria.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current bilateral hearing loss, right knee disability, and back disability are all service-connected. These conditions were incurred during his period of active duty.

The Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and sinus disorder, finding the claims not well-grounded due to lack of evidence linking these conditions to military service.

The Board found no evidence linking the veteran's current bilateral hearing loss to his military service, and denied his claim.

The veteran's tinnitus is granted service connection, and his bilateral hearing loss and postoperative right wrist injury are denied increased ratings.

The Board found that the veteran's hypercholesterolemia and bilateral high frequency hearing loss do not meet the criteria for service connection or an increased rating, respectively. The claims were denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for a rash and sinusitis, as well as his requests for higher evaluations for left and right elbow disabilities and hearing loss disability in the left ear. The appeal was dismissed due to an inadequate substantive appeal.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for fractured toes, residuals of a right hand injury, and hearing loss disability. The evidence did not support these claims.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for service connection are not well grounded and have been denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss disability, left knee injury residuals, and left knee laceration scar residuals. The claim for a compensable evaluation for hemorrhoids was also denied.

The Board found no competent evidence linking the veteran's current bilateral hearing loss to his service, specifically noting that there was no indication of full-time service during which he could have been exposed to noise. As a result, the claim for service connection was denied.

The Board granted a 60 percent rating for hypertensive heart disease with chronic renal insufficiency, effective from August 14, 1995. The claim for service connection for residuals of trauma to the right tibia was reopened due to new and material evidence.

The veteran's claims for service connection were denied. The Board found no current disabilities or evidence of disease/injury in service that could be linked to the conditions claimed.

The Board found no medical evidence linking the veteran's current bilateral hearing loss to his service, and thus denied his claim of entitlement to service connection for this condition.

The VA determined that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss does not meet the criteria for a compensable disability rating under the applicable regulations, as his hearing acuity did not reach the level required for such a rating. The RO considered whether to refer the case for extraschedular consideration but concluded it was not warranted.