Hearing loss Board decisions

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for hearing loss, finding no evidence of a chronic disability during or within one year after service and rejecting the veteran's contention that his current hearing loss is related to noise exposure in service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's timely substantive appeal was filed with respect to his August 1998 RO rating decision, which denied service connection for a right shoulder condition, bilateral hearing loss, and tinnitus. The case is now being returned to the RO for further development of the issues.

The Board found that the veteran does not have a current hearing loss disability for VA purposes and there is no evidence of a compensable hearing loss disability within one year after discharge from service. The Board also determined that there is no competent evidence relating the veteran's claimed disability to his military service or noise exposure therein.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for PTSD and denied service connection for it. The appeal regarding his bilateral hearing loss is mixed, with some issues granted and others not.

The Board denied service connection for a chronic right hip disorder and hearing loss of the right ear, but granted an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for chondromalacia patella of each knee effective from April 1992.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his military service, warranting service connection. The left pterygium is not considered a condition incurred in or aggravated by service.

The Board finds that the veteran's hearing loss of the left ear is as likely as not related to his service, while there is no evidence linking his current right ear hearing loss to service.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for hearing loss, kidney disease, urinary incontinence, and lumbar spine condition.

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and cold injury residuals of the hands, finding that these conditions are related to service. The veteran's claims have been remanded for further development regarding his claim for service connection for cold injury residuals of the hands.

The veteran's claim for restoration of a 40 percent rating for his bilateral hearing loss from February 1, 2001 to April 9, 2001 was granted. The RO reduced the rating from 40 to 20 percent in January 2001 and then restored it back to 40 percent within one year of that decision.

The Board has granted service connection for a glomus tumor of the right ear, but denied service connection for left and right ear hearing loss.

The Board has ordered further development due to the need for additional medical records and examinations. The case will be returned to the RO for this purpose.

The veteran's bilateral hearing loss is due to acoustic trauma incurred during his military service, and the Board has granted service connection for this condition.

The veteran's PTSD is productive of definite social and industrial impairment, warranting a 30 percent rating.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for hemorrhoids with constipation and hearing loss in the right ear.

The Board dismissed the appeal for service connection for hearing loss due to the appellant's withdrawal of his appeal.

The VA determined that the appellant's bilateral hearing loss and perforated eardrums were pre-existing conditions that existed prior to his entry into service, and thus denied his claims for service connection.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to incomplete information regarding the veteran's service stressors and exposure to noise. The claims for PTSD, hearing loss, and tinnitus are also being reviewed.

The Board found that the veteran's hearing loss disability in his left ear is not related to service and denied the claim.

The Board denied an increased rating for the veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss, finding that the evidence did not warrant a higher evaluation.