Hearing loss Board decisions

The Board denied the appellant's claims for increased evaluation of mandible fracture residuals, service connection for head trauma including headaches and dizziness, bilateral elbow disorder, refractive error (hyperopia and presbyopia), and hearing loss. The Board found that the evidence did not support an increase in rating beyond 10 percent for the jaw disability or establish service connection for any of the other conditions.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for stress and a nervous disorder, bilateral hearing loss, pre-existing anisometropia amblyopia of the right eye, and defective vision of the left eye. The evidence did not establish that any of these conditions were incurred or aggravated by service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current hearing loss and tinnitus are not related to his period of service, and therefore denied both claims.

The Board found that the veteran's current hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his military service, while his right and left knee disorders are not shown to be service-connected.

The Board has determined that the veteran's hearing loss in the left ear was aggravated by noise exposure during service, and they have ordered a VA examination to determine if his current tinnitus is related to service. The case will be remanded for further development.

The VA denied an increased evaluation for the veteran's right ear hearing loss, currently rated noncompensable.

The veteran's appeal was dismissed as he withdrew his appeal due to the improvement of hearing aids.

The Board denied service connection for hearing loss in the right ear and frostbite of the feet, finding no evidence to support these claims.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current bilateral hearing loss is related to noise exposure during his military service, and thus grants service connection for this condition.

The Board has determined that the appellant's bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus are related to military service, while his back disorder is not shown to have been present in or aggravated by military service.

The Board has vacated the previous decision and remanded the case for additional development due to legal issues, including invalidation of a regulation by the Federal Circuit Court. The veteran's claim is being returned to the RO for further review.

The Board has reopened the claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss due to new and material evidence submitted since the April 1976 rating decision. The issue of service connection for tinnitus and vertigo is remanded.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection and initial disability evaluations for his acquired psychiatric disorder, bilateral hearing loss, left upper extremity weakness due to status post left elbow fracture dislocation, L5-S1 disc annular tear with lower back pain, and asthma. The appeals were based on direct evidence of these conditions.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection of bilateral hearing loss, finding that the earliest date of entitlement was April 4, 2001.

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that the veteran's current conditions are likely related to his in-service noise exposure. The decision affords the benefit of doubt to the veteran.

The Board found that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss was not related to his active service and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an initial disability evaluation in excess of 10 percent for his service-connected bilateral hearing loss, finding that the current rating adequately reflects the severity of his condition.

The Board dismissed the veteran's appeal due to a lack of timely filing of a substantive appeal for his claim of entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for right knee chondromalacia.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded to the M&ROC for clarification and initial consideration of his claims, including skin cancer which was not addressed in the previous rating decision.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional development and evidence.