Hearing loss Board decisions

The Board has granted the Veteran's claims for service connection for tinnitus and right ear hearing loss, finding that there is sufficient evidence to support these claims based on in-service noise exposure.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss or pyelonephritis, as defined by VA regulations. Therefore, service connection for these conditions is denied.

The Veteran has withdrawn his appeal regarding whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Board dismisses the appeal.

The Veteran's psychiatric disability, to include PTSD and depression, was not incurred or aggravated in service. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

The Board found that the Veteran's bilateral sensorineural hearing loss is related to in-service noise exposure and granted service connection for this condition.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to service exposure, and thus grants service connection for both conditions.

The Veteran's service connection for left hearing loss is granted, and his PTSD disability rating is increased to 70 percent. The TDIU claim is also granted.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is being remanded due to the need for an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of his hearing loss.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claims for earlier effective dates for service connection are denied as there is no evidence of a prior pending claim. The effective date for grant of service connection will be February 6, 2009.

The Board found that there is no current diagnosis of PTSD, and thus denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD. The other issues remain pending.

The Board has granted service connection for tinnitus, finding that the Veteran's tinnitus is likely as not related to his active service. The claims for bilateral hearing loss and postoperative residuals of a right parotid gland tumor are remanded for additional development.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current disability of bilateral hearing loss or sinusitis, and therefore service connection cannot be granted for these conditions.

The Board found that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss did not begin during or as a result of his military service and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board finds that the Veteran's right ear hearing loss is not etiologically related to his military service or a service-connected disability, and thus does not warrant service connection.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for right ear hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that there was no evidence of a nexus between his current disabilities and his military service.

The Board found that the Veteran's hearing loss was not incurred or aggravated in service and did not meet the criteria for presumptive service connection due to noise exposure. The evidence showed no significant changes in hearing thresholds during military service, and there were no complaints of hearing loss.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional medical examination and opinion to determine if his current bilateral hearing loss disorder is related to service, including exposure to acoustic trauma during active duty as a submarine nuclear reactor operator. The case will be readjudicated after the completion of these actions.

The Veteran's appeal of service connection for left ear hearing loss is dismissed as the benefit sought on appeal (right ear hearing loss) has already been granted.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including bilateral hearing loss and PTSD, have rendered him unable to secure or maintain substantially gainful employment. His TDIU rating is granted.

The Veteran does not have a current disability of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes, and the Board finds that he did not incur such a disability during service.