Hearing loss Board decisions

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss does not warrant a compensable evaluation, as his pure tone thresholds and speech recognition scores do not meet the criteria for any higher rating under VA's Rating Schedule.

The veteran's claims for reopening his left ear hearing loss claim and seeking an increased rating for right ear hearing loss are being remanded due to significant notice deficiencies.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings for a right ankle disability, service connection for bilateral hearing loss, and service connection for tinnitus were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for an increased rating or service connection.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a toe injury and left ear hearing loss, finding that there is no evidence of current disabilities or continuity of symptomatology related to service.

The Board found no evidence of noise exposure during service and denied the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

The veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for his service-connected bilateral hearing loss is being remanded due to the need for a more recent VA audiometric examination.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for right ear hearing loss and left ear hearing loss, finding no evidence of a current disability related to service. The left ear hearing loss is currently rated as noncompensable.

The veteran seeks an increased evaluation for his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The Board has determined that a more contemporaneous VA examination is needed to assess the current severity of his condition and its functional effects on his daily activities.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and scheduling a VA examination to determine if the veteran's current hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his military service.

The veteran's claim for a compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss was denied for the period prior to May 10, 2007. A 10 percent evaluation is granted from May 10, 2007.

The Board has remanded the case due to the submission of new evidence and the need for additional consideration regarding the rating and effective date of any award.

The Board has dismissed the appeal due to the death of the appellant.

The Board denied increased ratings for bilateral hearing loss, finding that the evidence did not support a rating in excess of the current 20 percent prior to May 22, 2007 and 30 percent from May 22, 2007.

The veteran's initial claim for an increased evaluation for his service-connected bilateral hearing loss was denied. His claim for service connection for a claimed vision disorder, to include as secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus, is also denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for higher initial evaluations for tinnitus and left ear hearing loss, as well as his request for an earlier effective date for service connection of tinnitus. The claim for a back disorder was reopened but not granted.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss does not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under VA's disability evaluation guidelines.

The Board found that the veteran's diabetes mellitus was not incurred in or aggravated by active service and denied his claim. His bilateral hearing loss issue is pending due to a lack of relevant records.

The veteran's claims for PTSD, left shoulder dislocation, tinnitus, and hearing loss were denied as there is no evidence of a current disability or a link to service.

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and denied service connection for right hip arthritis. Bilateral hearing loss is found to be related to in-service noise exposure, while the right hip disorder is not shown within one year of separation from service.

The Board has determined that the claims for impotency, hearing loss, cervical spine disorder, and skin rash should be remanded due to procedural defects in their adjudication.