Hearing loss decisions — 2006

The veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is being remanded due to the submission of additional medical evidence. The RO will review this new evidence and issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC).

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, finding that there was no medical evidence linking his current hearing disability to military noise exposure.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of a right hand injury, hearing loss, and a left leg disorder manifested by a scar other than a left knee disability. The preponderance of evidence is against finding that any current disabilities are related to service.

The Board found that a compensable rating is not warranted for the service-connected bilateral hearing loss prior to November 22, 1999. For the period from November 22, 1999 onwards, a rating in excess of 10 percent was also denied.

The Board denied service connection for tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss, finding that the evidence did not support a nexus between these conditions and service. The only competent medical opinion was against the veteran's claims.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities do not meet the criteria for special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance of another person or housebound status.

The Board found no evidence to support the veteran's claim that his bilateral hearing loss is related to his military service, and thus denied the claim.

The Board found no evidence to support the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and a right foot disorder. The veteran's service records did not show any complaints or treatment related to these conditions during his military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an increased rating for type II diabetes mellitus and a compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss. The veteran was granted service connection for both conditions, but his initial ratings were found to be inadequate.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are due to in-service noise exposure, warranting service connection. The issue of whether his varicose ulcer disease and chronic erythema is related to his service-connected peripheral neuropathy remains unresolved.

The Board has determined that the appellant's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are not related to his military service, specifically due to a simulated bomb explosion during training. As such, the claims for service connection have been denied.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder, hearing loss, tinnitus, a condition manifested by pain in the legs, a condition manifested by back pain, dizziness/forgetfulness, and residuals of a head injury. The appeals on these issues are being remanded to the RO.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including a VA examination and obtaining medical records from Dr. Talley, Dr. Davis, and Dr. McGee.

The Board has determined that the submitted evidence is not new and material, thus denying the reopening of the claim for service connection for hearing loss.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding no evidence of in-service noise exposure or current disabilities within one year after discharge.

The Board finds that the veteran's current hearing loss is not related to his active service, and thus does not meet the criteria for service connection.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings were denied as the evidence did not meet the criteria for higher evaluations under VA rating criteria.

The Board found that the veteran's left ear hearing loss is not related to active service and denied his claim for service connection.

The veteran's claims for service connection for an adjustment disorder, including as secondary to his service-connected bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, were denied. His claim for a higher initial rating for the bilateral hearing loss was also denied.

The Board has ordered the case to be remanded for further action due to VA's duty to assist as set forth in the VCAA.