Hearing loss decisions — 2009

The Board has determined that there is no competent and credible evidence attributing the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and right ear drum perforation to his military service. Therefore, these claims for service connection have been denied.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's left ear hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his military service, including noise exposure in Vietnam. As such, the claims for service connection have been granted.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is not related to his active service and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's hearing loss in both ears is rated as zero percent (0%) due to the Numeric Designations of 'I' for his right and left ear, which are within the normal range. The claim for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development by the AMC.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims of service connection for bilateral knee disability, low back disability, and bilateral hearing loss due to lack of new and material evidence.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss is not related to service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board found that the Veteran does not have a hearing loss disability of the left ear as defined by VA regulations and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board denied an increased rating for the Veteran's lumbosacral strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease, finding that his current evaluation of 20 percent is appropriate based on the evidence. The hearing loss claim was also denied.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for tinnitus was denied as there is no evidence of a current diagnosis. The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for bilateral high frequency hearing loss was also denied due to his failure to appear for the scheduled VA examination.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are not related to his active duty service, as evidenced by the lack of in-service complaints or findings of hearing loss or tinnitus. The VA examiner concluded that the Veteran's current hearing loss and tinnitus are more likely due to civilian noise exposure, presbycusis, and/or some other etiology.

The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability has been rated as 0 percent disabling, effective October 1, 2004. The claim for an initial compensable evaluation is denied.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for a low back disability and for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss, finding that there was no evidence linking his current conditions to his military service.

The Board denied claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a cardiovascular disorder, and peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities. The VA found no evidence linking these conditions to military service.

The Board has determined that there is no evidence to support a finding of service connection for bilateral hearing loss or tinnitus. The Veteran's claims have been denied.

The Board has remanded the claims due to inadequate VCAA notice and missing medical records.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development as the 90-day period to submit evidence expired, and the Veteran submitted the evidence after this period. The Social Security Administration awarded disability benefits in June 2008, which was within the 90-day period.

The Veteran's hypertension is found to be proximately due to his service-connected PTSD. His PTSD is rated at the maximum schedular rating of 70 percent.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus have been granted. The claim for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for diabetes mellitus has been denied.

The Board found that the RO's calculation of the Veteran's combined rating of 80 percent was correct in the October 2005 decision and denied the appeal as there is no entitlement to a greater benefit under the law.