Hearing loss decisions — 2009

The Veteran's TDIU claim was denied because he failed to report for scheduled VA examinations needed to determine his employability.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not prevent him from obtaining and retaining employment consistent with his abilities, aptitudes, and interests. As the effects of an employability impairment have been overcome, he does not have an employment handicap.

The Board has determined that further VA audiological evaluations are needed to determine if the Veteran meets the criteria for hearing loss as a disability for VA purposes. The claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus will be remanded for this purpose.

The Veteran's initial noncompensable evaluation for left ear hearing loss is being remanded due to the need for further VA examination to assess the functional effects of his hearing disability.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been received to reopen the Veteran's claim for service connection for left ear hearing loss, resulting in a denial of the appeal.

The Veteran's service-connected left ear hearing loss, allergic rhinitis, and lumbar strain were all granted with effective dates of June 9, 2002. The Veteran was awarded a noncompensable evaluation for his service-connected eye disability. His initial compensable evaluation for lumbar strain was assigned on May 19, 2003.

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

The Board found that the appellant's current bilateral hearing loss did not manifest during service and is not related to his active duty service, thus denying his claim for service connection.

The Board has denied service connection for right ear hearing loss and tinnitus as there is no evidence to support a link between these conditions and the veteran's active military service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are not related to service, including exposure to loud noise in service. As a result, the claims for service connection for these conditions have been denied.

The Board has granted service connection for tinnitus and found that the Veteran's left hip disability is related to his service-connected lumbosacral degenerative joint disease. The bilateral hearing loss claim was not granted as there is no evidence of a current disability meeting VA criteria.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for hearing loss and a compensable initial evaluation for deviated septum was denied. The Board found that the Veteran did not have a disability for hearing loss under VA criteria, and his claim for a compensable evaluation for deviated septum was also denied as there was no evidence of obstruction in either nostril.

The Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus as the evidence did not show a relationship to service.

The Board has denied the appellant's claims for service connection for headaches, a low back condition, hearing loss, and right hand and wrist conditions due to lack of medical evidence showing current disabilities.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, and granted his claim for an initial compensable rating for residuals of a right middle finger scar.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that new evidence supports these claims. The Board granted service connection based on direct evidence of a link between the conditions and military service.

The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were not incurred in or aggravated by active service, but the Board finds that they are related to service based on continuity of symptomatology. Service connection is granted for tinnitus, but not for bilateral hearing loss.

The Veteran seeks service connection for meningioma, which he claims developed during or within one year after his military service. The Board finds that additional development is needed to determine the etiology of the condition and whether it is related to service.