Hearing loss decisions — 2008

The Board has remanded the case to the RO for compliance with instructions in a Joint Motion, including obtaining an adequate VA examination and providing the veteran's claims file to the examiner.

The veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred on September 18, 2003 were reimbursed as the treatment was for a medical emergency and VA facilities were unavailable.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, finding that it is not related to military service.

The Board found no evidence of hearing loss during service and determined that the current bilateral hearing loss is not related to military service. The appeal was denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his service, including exposure to acoustic trauma during active duty. As a result, both conditions have been granted service connection.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to issues with the previous VA audiological examination.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current bilateral hearing loss disability is not related to service, including as due to noise exposure therein. Therefore, service connection for this condition is denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to service and grants service connection for this condition.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to verify the veteran's claimed in-service stressors for PTSD and to obtain VA treatment records. The case will be remanded for these actions.

The Board has determined that the veteran's currently diagnosed bilateral hearing loss and bilateral tinnitus are the result of a disease or injury in service, specifically exposure to acoustic trauma during his time as an ammunition loader. As such, the claims for service connection have been granted.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that neither condition warranted a rating in excess of the current assigned evaluations.

The Board has determined that a new VA audiological examination is needed to evaluate the veteran's claim for an increased rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral hearing loss.

The Board found that the evidence does not support a finding of service connection for a respiratory disorder, to include shortness of breath. The veteran's claim for an initial compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss is remanded due to the need for a new VA audiological examination.

The Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that the veteran's current conditions are not related to his military service or any aspect thereof.

The veteran's claims for service connection on all issues except tinnitus were denied. The maximum disability rating of 10% for tinnitus was granted.

The Board found that the appellant's current hearing loss and tinnitus did not manifest during service or for many years following service, and are not shown to be causally related to service. As such, the claims of entitlement to service connection were denied.

The veteran claims service connection for bilateral hearing loss, which he alleges was incurred due to noise exposure during his active duty aboard the USS Wasp. The VA has been unable to obtain all of the veteran's post-service medical records and is requesting them from him. Additionally, the VA will arrange for an examination by a specialist in otolaryngology to determine if the veteran has a current hearing loss disability related to service exposure to noise.

The Board found that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss is not related to service and denied his claim.

The VA determined that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss does not warrant a compensable evaluation, as his audiometric results do not meet the criteria for any higher rating.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and an initial compensable rating for his appendectomy scar, finding no new and material evidence to reopen the hearing loss claim and denying a compensable rating for the scar.