Hearing loss Board decisions

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for left ear hearing loss is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and arranging for a supplemental VA medical opinion.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are directly related to his military service, including exposure to acoustic trauma. As such, the claims for service connection have been granted.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to in-service acoustic trauma, resolving reasonable doubt in his favor.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current disability of the left arm related to service and denied his claim for service connection. The issue of bilateral hearing loss disability is addressed in the REMAND portion.

The Veteran's claims for service connection and increased ratings have been granted. The decision addresses the issues of sleep apnea, left ear hearing loss, hiatal hernia, right ear hearing loss, and maxillary sinusitis.

The Board found that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are not related to his active duty service, including noise exposure. The evidence does not support a finding for either direct or presumed service connection.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are etiologically related to his in-service noise exposure, and thus grants service connection for these disabilities.

The Board finds that the Veteran's claimed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are not service-connected as they are less likely caused by or a result of his military service.

The Veteran's initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss has been denied by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

The Board finds that the evidence is in equipoise regarding whether the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability is related to service, and grants service connection for this condition.

The Board has determined that the earliest date of a pending claim for service connection for tinnitus was August 9, 2011. Therefore, an effective date earlier than this date is not warranted.

The Board has determined that further development is needed to determine the Veteran's exposure to noise in service and whether his current hearing loss and tinnitus are related to such exposure. The case will be remanded for this purpose.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for increased ratings for asbestos-related pleural disease and bilateral hearing loss, finding that the current disability levels did not warrant a higher rating under VA's schedular criteria.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including scheduling a videoconference hearing at the RO.

The Veteran is entitled to an educational assistance benefit level of 100 percent under Chapter 33 (Post-9/11 GI Bill) due to his service-connected disabilities and the fact that he was discharged from service due to a service-connected disability.

The Board has dismissed the appeals due to the appellant's withdrawal of the appeals.

The Veteran's claim for bilateral hearing loss is denied as there is no evidence of a current disability.,The Veteran's claim for lung or respiratory disability, claimed as breathing problems, is denied due to lack of documented respiratory issues during service and post-service medical records do not show any chronic respiratory condition.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability had its onset during active service and grants service connection for this condition.

The Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that the evidence did not establish a nexus between current hearing disabilities and in-service noise exposure from gun fire. The Appellant's period of ACDUTRA was found to have included noise exposure but no disability was shown at separation.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, including secondary to residuals of a traumatic brain injury, has been withdrawn. As such, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review this appeal and it is dismissed.