Hearing loss Board decisions

The Board denied the veteran's claims for earlier effective dates for service connection of hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that there was no legal basis to grant such an earlier date.

The veteran's bilateral hearing loss, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, tinnitus, residuals of a medial meniscectomy of the right knee, and degenerative joint disease of the right knee are all rated at their maximum levels. The effective date for his total rating by reason of individual unemployability is March 9, 2000.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and an acquired psychiatric disorder, but further development is needed before addressing their merits.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the loss of hearing from a previous hearing and his request for another hearing.

The veteran's claims for service connection were denied across the board. The Board found no evidence of chronic conditions or injuries during service, and there was insufficient medical evidence to establish a nexus between any current disabilities and military service.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that new evidence supports a reopening of these claims. The Board also found that both conditions are related to active duty service.

The Board found that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were not related to service, as there was no evidence of in-service noise exposure or current disability. The claims for service connection were denied.

The Board found that the veteran does not have an employment handicap and is already suitably employed, thus denying his claim for vocational rehabilitation training.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development due to the implementation of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000.

The VA has determined that the veteran's PTSD and right ear hearing loss were not incurred during or as a result of active service.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining pertinent evidence and scheduling VA examinations to determine if his hearing loss and PTSD are related to service.

The veteran's compensation award was reduced due to his failure to provide the Social Security number for his spouse and child. The effective date of the reduction is April 1, 1993.

The Board denied the veteran's claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss, hypertension (secondary to DDT exposure), and tumors of the back (secondary to DDT exposure).

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for bilateral tinnitus was denied as the disability is already rated at its maximum of 10 percent.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has remanded the case for further development, including an audiological examination and consideration of whether to grant an extraschedular evaluation.

The Board has granted a disability rating of 60 percent for the veteran's service-connected status post inferior wall myocardial infarction with essential hypertension, effective from January 12, 1998. The veteran is also granted entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to his service-connected disabilities.

The veteran's claim for service connection for hearing loss is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining his service medical records and arranging for VA audiological and otolaryngology examinations.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and conflicting medical opinions regarding whether the veteran's service-connected skull injury residuals contributed to his fatal respiratory arrest.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected disabilities, including headaches, otitis media with perforated left tympanic membrane, vestibular defect, tinnitus, and bilateral hearing loss, combine to render him unemployable.

The veteran's appeal for an increased rating for his bilateral hearing loss is being remanded due to the need for a new VA examination and consideration of the extraschedular evaluation.