Hearing loss Board decisions

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that the Veteran's conditions are related to his active duty service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have left ear hearing loss of sufficient severity to constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes.,For right ear hearing loss, the evidence is in equipoise as to whether it was incurred in service. The claim is granted.

The Veteran seeks a TDIU based on his service-connected disabilities. The Board is unable to determine whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities render him unemployable due to lack of consideration in the current evidence of record and remands for further examination.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not preclude substantially gainful employment, given his educational and occupational background.

The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss has been rated at 30 percent since September 8, 2010. The Board found that the current rating adequately reflects his disability.

The Board found no evidence of hearing loss or tinnitus during service, and the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that current hearing loss or tinnitus is related to service. The Veteran's claims for service connection were denied.

The Board found no evidence linking the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss to his service, including noise exposure. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's hearing loss was incurred in or aggravated by military service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus are related to his active service, with reasonable doubt resolved in favor of the Veteran.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the etiology of the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran will be scheduled for a VA audiological examination to provide opinions on these issues.

The Veteran's claims for service connection are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining VA medical opinions and treatment records.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence and a need for further examination. The Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are pending.

The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is productive of no more than Level I hearing acuity bilaterally, and the criteria for an initial compensable evaluation have not been met.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional development of his claims, including obtaining service records and medical opinions regarding his claimed conditions.

The Board found that the Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss is currently assigned a zero percent (non-compensable) rating, as his pure tone thresholds do not meet the criteria for any higher evaluation under VA's Rating Schedule.

The Veteran does not have sufficient hearing loss in his ears to be considered a disability by VA standards, and therefore service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

The Veteran does not have a diagnosed disability of bilateral hearing loss at any time during the pendency of his appeal. As such, service connection for this condition is denied.

The Veteran is seeking an earlier effective date for a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. The Board has remanded the case for further development and consideration.

The Board has ordered a remand to obtain VA treatment records and provide an addendum opinion from the May 2013 VA examiner regarding whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for left ear hearing loss. The remaining issues on appeal are addressed in the REMAND portion of this decision.

The Veteran's claim for higher evaluations for bilateral hearing loss was denied as the evidence did not show that his disability warranted a rating in excess of 40 percent.