Hearing loss decisions — 2004

The Board has ordered a VA audiologic examination to determine the nature and likely etiology of the veteran's claimed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus due to service exposure. The case is being remanded for compliance with VCAA requirements.

The veteran's claim for increased ratings for tinnitus, scars on the right forearm, and scars on the right thigh was denied. The Board found that a rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral tinnitus is not warranted.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for a higher rating for his bilateral hearing loss and an earlier effective date, finding that the evidence did not support such findings.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his military service, granting service connection for both conditions.

The Board has remanded the veteran's claims for bronchial asthma, allergic rhinitis, and partial hearing loss due to incomplete development of evidence regarding asbestos exposure in service. The RO is instructed to develop this issue further and provide a VA examination.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss and service connection for low back disability.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his exposure to acoustic trauma during his military service, granting service connection for these conditions.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability and a low back disorder. The claim for a right thigh disorder is pending and will be addressed in the REMAND portion.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development and examination, including a VA audiology examination.

The Board has granted the veteran's claim to reopen his service connection for hypertension and assigned a non-compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. The initial (compensable) rating for tinea pedis remains unchanged.

The Board has granted the veteran's claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that his conditions are related to military noise exposure.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus require additional development, including a VA examination to determine the etiology of these conditions.

The Board has dismissed the appeal due to a withdrawal request from the veteran's representative.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings for hearing loss, tinnitus, and scars on the face were denied. The RO found that the veteran did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under the applicable VA regulations.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling examinations to assess the impact of his service-connected disabilities on his employability.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for schizophrenia. The other claims related to hearing loss, postoperative right foot disability, and right knee disability are pending further development.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that new and material evidence was submitted. The Board also found that these conditions are related to active service.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to determine the nature and etiology of any lung disorder and/or bilateral hearing loss, including whether they are related to service exposure. The veteran will be afforded VA examinations for these issues.

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, but denied an initial compensable rating for residuals of a pilonidal cyst excision and grafting. The veteran's claim for increased compensation remains pending.

The VA determined that the appellant's bilateral hearing loss does not meet the criteria for a compensable evaluation, as his hearing acuity did not warrant any higher rating than Level I under Diagnostic Code 6100.