Hearing loss decisions — 2004

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected eardrum perforations do not warrant a compensable rating from April 1, 1996. The appeal is denied.

The Board denied the appellant's claims of service connection for various conditions, including left ear hearing loss, shell fragment wound residuals, Lyme disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and appendicitis. The right ear hearing loss disability was assigned a noncompensable rating.

The Board has determined that further development is needed before a decision can be rendered on the merits of the veteran's claims for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus. The case is being remanded to the RO via the AMC in Washington, D.C., for additional development.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for a VA audiology examination and further development of his claim.

The veteran's claim for an increased (compensable) disability evaluation for hearing loss of the left ear is being remanded due to inadequate development and consideration.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for hypertension based on new evidence showing a diagnosis of hypertension post-service. The claim is granted.,Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted as the veteran had normal hearing at entry into service and was exposed to hazardous noise levels during service.

The VA denied the veteran's claims for an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss and a disability evaluation in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus, finding that his current ratings are appropriate based on the evidence of record.

The Board has remanded the veteran's claim of service connection for right ear hearing loss due to inadequate notice and examination.

The VA determined that the veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss does not warrant a compensable rating based on current medical evidence.

The Board has remanded the veteran's claim for hearing loss disability due to a lack of current VA audiological examination. The other issues remain under consideration.

The Board denied the veteran's claim to reopen his service connection for bilateral hearing loss, finding that no new and material evidence had been submitted. The decision also noted that the veteran did not establish a current left ear hearing loss disability.

The Board has remanded the case due to a failure to provide proper VCAA notification and development. The appellant's claims for reopening service connection for back disability and bilateral hearing loss are pending.

The Board found that new evidence did not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claims for service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus, as there was no current diagnosis linking these conditions to service. The veteran's claim for an increased initial rating for PTSD remains pending.

The Board has found new and material evidence to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability, which was previously denied in an unappealed rating decision. The veteran's exposure to noise during military service is presumed, but a VA examination is needed to determine if this condition is related to his service.

The Board found that the veteran's right ear hearing loss disability did not worsen during his active service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen these claims.

The Board found no in-service noise trauma and denied the veteran's claims for service connection for right ear hearing loss and tinnitus, concluding that his current conditions are not related to military service.

The Board denied an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for bilateral hearing loss, finding that the earliest evidence of intent to reopen the claim was February 9, 2001.

The veteran's claim for an initial (compensable) evaluation for bilateral hearing loss is being remanded due to procedural deficiencies and the need for additional development.