Hearing loss Board decisions

The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to his period of active service, and the Board finds that he has established service connection for this condition.

The Board has granted service connection for tinnitus and left ear hearing loss disability, but denied service connection for right ear hearing loss disability.

The Board found that the Veteran's hearing loss did not originate in service and is not related to any incident therein, including a claimed perforated left eardrum. The VA examiner concluded that the current bilateral hearing loss was less likely as not caused by or a result of M1 fire near the left ear during service.

The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are found to be related to service, and he is granted service connection for these conditions. His claim for special monthly pension based on the need for aid and attendance is dismissed as his benefit is already in effect.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a lumbar spine disability was denied, but his claim for an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss prior to July 19, 2013, and in excess of 20 percent as of that date has been granted.

The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss has been rated as noncompensable under the applicable rating criteria, and a higher rating is not warranted.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's right leg meralgia paresthetica is related to his service-connected lumbar spine disability and thus, he is entitled to service connection for this condition.

The Board finds that the evidence is in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to in-service acoustic trauma, and grants service connection for this disability.

The Board found that the Veteran does not have a current disability of bilateral hearing loss for VA compensation purposes and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board found that the Veteran's claimed bilateral hearing loss disability did not manifest during service or within one year of separation, and is unrelated to service. The VA examination report provided a thorough analysis based on the Veteran's self-reported history.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including lumbar disc disease and bilateral radiculopathy, left ankle disability, tinnitus, and hearing loss, have rendered him unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's current hearing loss is related to service, including noise exposure during military service and post-service work-related noise exposure.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to his failure to appear for a Travel Board hearing scheduled at the RO. The case will be returned to the Board once he has provided notice of his new address and scheduling an additional hearing.

The Veteran's case is being remanded for the VA to obtain his recent VA treatment records and conduct a more contemporaneous examination of his right ear hearing loss.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for service-connected bilateral hearing loss is being remanded due to the need for a new VA audiology evaluation and updated treatment records.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is etiologically related, at least in part, to his in-service noise exposure and grants service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including PTSD, rendered him unable to follow substantially gainful employment prior to October 6, 2014.

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

The Veteran's appeal of the issues of service connection for obstructive sleep apnea and an initial compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss disability has been withdrawn.

The Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss has been evaluated as noncompensable throughout the appeal period, with no distinct periods of time when a compensable evaluation would be warranted.