Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) decisions — 2004

The Board denied the veteran's claim for separate compensable evaluations for tinnitus in each ear, finding that only a single 10 percent evaluation is assignable under current and prior regulations.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for separate compensable evaluations for tinnitus in each ear, finding that only a single 10 percent evaluation is assignable under current regulations.

The Board denied an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for the veteran's tinnitus, finding that the current rating criteria do not allow for separate evaluations for each ear and that there is no legal basis to assign such evaluations.

The veteran's claim for a higher disability rating for service-connected bilateral tinnitus is denied as the maximum schedular evaluation of 10 percent has already been assigned.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for separate 10 percent evaluations for each ear of his bilateral tinnitus, finding that a single rating was appropriate under the applicable regulations.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for separate 10 percent ratings for his service-connected bilateral tinnitus, finding that there is no legal basis to award such ratings under current regulations.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for separate 10 percent disability evaluations for each ear for his bilateral tinnitus, finding that only a single 10 percent rating is authorized under the current regulations.

The Board has determined that the veteran is already receiving the highest schedular evaluation assignable for tinnitus, which is a 10 percent evaluation. Therefore, an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus to include separate evaluations for each ear is not warranted.

The veteran's claim for separate 10 percent disability ratings for each ear due to bilateral tinnitus was denied as the current version of Diagnostic Code 6260 prohibits separate evaluations for recurrent tinnitus in each ear.

The Board granted service connection for tinnitus and assigned a 10 percent disability rating, but did not address the request for separate ratings for each ear as it was not part of the original claim.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased initial rating for tinnitus, finding that a single 10 percent evaluation was appropriate regardless of whether it is perceived in one ear, both ears, or somewhere in the head.

The veteran's claim for a higher evaluation for service-connected tinnitus, to include separate evaluations for each ear, was denied as the maximum schedular rating of 10 percent is already in effect.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a separate evaluation for tinnitus in each ear, finding that only a single 10 percent rating is authorized under current regulations.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings were granted, with a 10% rating assigned for tinnitus effective from June 10, 1999.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected tinnitus, bilateral hearing loss, and bilateral chronic otitis media with perforated membranes as these conditions are already at their maximum schedular rating.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for separate 10 percent ratings for his service-connected bilateral tinnitus, finding that there is no legal basis to award such ratings under current regulations.

The Board found no clear and unmistakable error in the August 1989 rating decision that granted service connection for left ear tinnitus with a 10% evaluation. The veteran's claim was denied as there was not enough evidence to establish CUE.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for left ear hearing loss and tinnitus, finding no evidence of these conditions being incurred in or aggravated by military service. The claim for PTSD is pending and remanded to the RO.

The veteran's appeal was dismissed as he withdrew his appeal prior to the Board making a final decision.

The veteran's claim for an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral tinnitus, including entitlement to separate evaluation for each ear, was denied as there is no legal basis for such a higher schedular evaluation.