Hearing loss decisions — 2000

The Board has remanded the case due to recent changes in the laws affecting the processing of service connection claims, and further development is required.

The case is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination. The veteran's claims for service connection for hearing loss and restoration of his evaluation for postoperative residuals of septorhinoplasty are pending.

The Board found that the appellant did not have residuals of electrocution, hypertension, or bilateral hearing loss incurred in service. The evidence does not support a finding that these conditions were related to his military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and an increased evaluation for his left shoulder disability, finding no evidence of current disabilities meeting VA criteria.

The Board dismissed the appellant's appeal for service connection of personality disorder. The claim of increased evaluation for depressive disorder was denied, and the claim of tinnitus was granted as incurred in service.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and granted service connection for postoperative residuals of a right foot injury. The decision is mixed as it grants one issue (bilateral hearing loss) but denies another (postoperative residuals of a right foot injury).

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss was denied on the merits due to lack of new and material evidence.

The veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied as there is no current evidence of the claimed condition.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected left elbow fracture, laceration of the ring finger, and right thumb amputation. The RO found no evidence of hearing loss disability under VA regulations.

The Board has determined that a timely appeal was filed regarding the April 1997 rating decision finding no new and material evidence for reopening the claim of service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities (bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus) do not prevent him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation, thus a total rating based on individual unemployability is denied.

The VA determined that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss does not warrant a compensable rating under either the old or new rating criteria.

The Board finds that the veteran's claimed conditions are not related to his active service and thus denied service connection for all issues.

The Board denied reopening the veteran's claim for service connection due to lack of new and material evidence, and also denied his claims for Eustachian tube dysfunction and labyrinthitis with vertigo.

The veteran's bilateral hearing loss claim was denied. The initial evaluation for the left knee disability remains at 20%. A separate rating of 10% is assigned for degenerative changes at L3-L5.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and sinusitis with allergic rhinitis and deviated nasal septum. The veteran's preexisting condition of a deviated nasal septum is not considered to have been aggravated by her military service, as there is no clear and unmistakable evidence that it was worsened during service.

The veteran's claim for service connection for hearing loss is not well grounded. However, the criteria for an initial evaluation of 50 percent for PTSD have been met.

The veteran's bilateral hearing loss was rated as noncompensable before June 10, 1999. However, from June 10, 1999, a 10 percent disability evaluation for bilateral hearing loss is granted.

The veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is being remanded due to procedural defects and the need for additional development, including a VA audiology examination.

The case is being remanded due to the need for additional development and consideration under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000.