Hearing loss decisions — 2008

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have current diagnoses for most of his claimed conditions, and those with current diagnoses do not meet the criteria for service connection due to lack of evidence linking them to military service or a service-connected disability.

The Board has remanded the case due to missing service medical records and a need for additional evidence. The veteran is advised of alternative sources of evidence, including VA and non-VA providers who treated him for hearing loss or tinnitus.

The Board found that the veteran's hearing loss existed prior to service and did not increase during service. Therefore, it denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) due to his service-connected disabilities, as they are not of such severity that he is unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment.

The Board has remanded the claims due to the veteran's failure to appear for a Travel Board hearing scheduled in October 2008. The case is now back with the RO for further action.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an initial compensable rating prior to May 1, 2008 and for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent beginning May 1, 2008 for his service-connected hearing loss.

The Board has granted service connection for tinnitus, finding that it was incurred in service. Service connection was denied for the other conditions listed.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have hearing loss or tinnitus that is related to his military service and therefore denied both claims.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including a VA audiological evaluation and compliance with Vazquez-Flores v. Peake notice requirements.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding no evidence of a nexus between these conditions and his military service.

The VA denied the veteran's claims for increased disability ratings for bilateral hearing loss and otitis media, finding that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under applicable VA regulations.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were not incurred or aggravated by active service, nor may they be presumed to have been so incurred.

The Board has decided that the veteran's claims for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are not currently resolved, and thus requires further development to determine if service connection can be granted.

The VA has determined that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss does not meet the criteria for a compensable evaluation, resulting in a denial of his claim.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a current disability of bilateral hearing loss, as defined by VA regulations. Therefore, service connection for this condition is denied.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed, including obtaining an opinion on whether the veteran's hearing loss at entry was aggravated by service and a determination of whether his tinnitus is related to service. The case will be held in abeyance until these issues are resolved.

The Board has determined that the veteran's hearing loss does not meet the criteria for a compensable rating based on his audiometric test results, and thus denied his claim.

The Board found no evidence of hearing loss or tinnitus during service and denied the veteran's claims for service connection as there was insufficient continuity of symptomatology to support a grant based on post-service complaints.

The Board has granted service connection for right ear hearing loss and tinnitus. The left ear hearing loss claim is remanded for readjudication.

The Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that the veteran's current conditions did not have a nexus to his active service. The VA examination revealed significant sensorineural hearing loss but concluded it was not likely due to noise exposure during service.