Hearing loss Board decisions

The Board has determined that there is no probative evidence linking the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus to his military service, including noise exposure. The claims for service connection are therefore denied.

The VA denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, concluding that there is no credible evidence linking his current hearing disability to his military service.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded for further evaluation and determination regarding the provision of additional payment for woodworking tools under a Department of Veterans Affairs independent living services program.

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

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss, finding that the Veteran's current hearing loss is related to his military service and resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran.

The Veteran seeks an increased rating for his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The RO has ordered a new VA examination to assess the current severity of the disability and its impact on daily activities, as well as requested any outstanding private treatment records.

The Board found that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss did not meet the criteria for service connection as it was not incurred or aggravated by his military service, and thus denied the claim.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for a new VA examination and additional treatment records. The case will be reviewed again after these are obtained.

The Board finds that the Veteran's left ear hearing loss disability is service-connected, but his right ear hearing loss disability does not meet VA compensation criteria.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss disability are related to his military service, with the VA examiner providing a detailed rationale for this conclusion.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development and adjudicative action due to incomplete records, including a lack of audiometric results from the May 2009 examination. The Veteran's claim is being returned to the RO/AMC for further review.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to the Denver, Colorado RO for a videoconference hearing at the Cheyenne, Wyoming RO.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and a vision disorder, finding no current disability for VA purposes.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that there was no credible evidence showing these conditions began during or were otherwise related to his military service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's right ear hearing loss disability is related to his military service, specifically noise exposure during active duty.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities (bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and asthma) render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claimed conditions were not incurred or aggravated by service, and thus denied his claims for service connection.

The Board found that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss warrants a rating of 30 percent, effective from October 2005. The claims for service connection for low back disability and bilateral shoulder disabilities were denied as there is no evidence of current diagnoses or service connection based on history.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed in order to properly adjudicate the Veteran's claims, including obtaining updated treatment records and scheduling appropriate examinations.

The Board found no evidence of a relationship between the Veteran's current right ear hearing loss and tinnitus, which meet the statutory threshold under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, and his active duty service. The Veteran's claims for left ear hearing loss were not adjudicated as they are separate issues.