Hearing loss Board decisions

The Board has remanded the veteran's claims due to insufficient evidence regarding the etiology of his current hearing loss and right knee condition, which are presumed to be related to service.

The veteran's total rating for compensation based upon individual unemployability was granted effective August 12, 2000. The RO found that the veteran became unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment due to his service-connected disabilities starting from December 31, 1994.

The Board has ordered further development in the case due to pending issues and is remanding it back to the RO for additional consideration.

The Board has ordered further development due to pending issues and is remanding the case back to the RO for additional consideration.

The veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability warrants a noncompensable evaluation prior to May 9, 2002, and a 10 percent evaluation from May 9, 2002.

The VA determined that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss does not warrant a compensable rating.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current bilateral hearing loss is not related to service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that additional evidence is needed and the case is being remanded to the RO for further consideration.

The Board has determined that the veteran's right ear hearing loss and tinnitus are related to service exposure, while his left ear hearing loss is not a compensable disability.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection were denied. The RO granted service connection for a scar on the right upper lip but assigned a no percent rating.

The Board finds that the veteran is entitled to service connection for residuals of a stress fracture of the left leg and bilateral hearing loss, both found to be related to his military service. The depression claim is also granted as it is determined to be secondary to his service-connected cervical spine disability.

The veteran's request to reopen his claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus was denied because he failed to report for a scheduled VA examination without good cause shown.

The VA determined that the veteran does not have a disability for VA benefits purposes due to bilateral hearing loss, and therefore denied his claim.

The Board has determined that the evidence supports service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus, finding it at least as likely as not related to military service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss and PTSD do not meet the criteria for service connection or an increased rating, respectively. The evidence does not support a finding of service connection due to exposure during service, and there is no indication of new and material evidence to reopen the claim for service connection.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for service connection for hearing loss as he did not have qualifying military service for VA disability benefits.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus, as well as his claim for an increased rating for hemorrhoids. The veteran's depressive and anxiety disorder was rated at 50 percent disabling.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for left ear infection, perforation of the left tympanic membrane, and hearing loss in the left ear. The appeals for increased ratings for right ear nerve deafness, scar of the right tympanic membrane, dementia secondary to PTSD, and right ear otitis media are also addressed.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection and higher ratings for various conditions, including periodontal disease, right ear hearing loss, left ear hearing loss, low back disability, onychomycosis of the hands and feet, seborrheic dermatitis of the scalp, and reactive airway disease.

The Board has directed additional development of the claim, including forwarding the appellant's claims folder to a VA physician for interpretation of an audiological examination conducted by a non-VA physician. The case is now being remanded back to the RO for readjudication following any additional development and consideration.