Hearing loss Board decisions

The Veteran's claim for increased ratings for bilateral hearing loss was denied. Prior to July 24, 2012, the Veteran did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating. As of July 24, 2012, he met the criteria for a 10 percent disability rating.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss requires additional development due to inadequate medical opinions and incomplete compliance with prior remand instructions.

The Board has determined that the evidence is in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss is related to his time as a Marine jet mechanic, and grants service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's right ear hearing loss is found to be related to his military service and meets the criteria for service connection.

The Board determined that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are not service-connected, as there is no evidence of in-service acoustic trauma or a chronic condition during service. The examiner opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's hearing loss was caused by his active duty service.

The Board denied higher disability ratings on an extraschedular basis for the Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss disability, finding that the evidence did not present an exceptional or unusual disability picture.,The Board also denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder involving anxiety, a paranoid disorder, or loss of sleep, as there was no diagnosed psychiatric disability.,Both decisions were based on the existing schedular rating criteria and secondary service connection provisions.

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss based on the presumption of service connection due to exposure to loud combat-related noise in service.

The Board found no evidence of a current hearing loss disability under the VA criteria for service connection, and denied all three issues related to service connection.

The Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss disability is not shown to be productive of a disability picture that warrants a compensable evaluation, and the current rating assigned is therefore denied.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for a left knee disability, vertigo, and bilateral hearing loss have been denied. His claim for an increased rating for his bilateral hearing loss has also been denied.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for reopening his hearing loss disability due to insufficient evidence showing aggravation of a preexisting condition during service.

The Veteran's claims of service connection for left ear hearing loss, right ear hearing loss, low back disability and sinusitis are being remanded due to the need for additional development.

The Veteran's claims of increased rating for left ear hearing loss, service connection for right ear hearing loss, and service connection for tinnitus are being remanded due to the need to obtain VA treatment records and provide a new VA examination.

The Board has determined that the claims for service connection must be remanded due to the need for additional development and examination.

The Board has remanded the case due to missing service records and further examination is needed.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and otitis media are granted, with no specific rating assigned as these issues were decided on the merits.

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

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a stress fracture of the left knee or tibia, heart disability, and hearing loss was denied. The Board found no current diagnosis of these conditions.

The Veteran's hearing loss was rated at 20% before October 15, 2010. Since then, his hearing acuity has improved to warrant a higher 30% rating.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate examination and missing medical records, particularly those from Exxon Corp. related to hearing loss.