Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) decisions — 2008

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus due to a lack of evidence linking these conditions to his time in service.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to incomplete service records and the need for a statement of the case (SOC) on issues related to bilateral knee injury and bilateral thigh condition. The claims for hearing loss, tinnitus, and knee injuries/thigh conditions will be returned to the Board after issuance of the SOC.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bronchial asthma was incurred in active service, but his claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are denied. His claim for an increased rating for hypertension is also denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are not related to his military service, as there is no evidence of acoustic trauma during service or a nexus between any current disabilities and service. As such, the claims for service connection have been denied.

The Board has found that the veteran's tinnitus is due to service exposure to acoustic trauma, but denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The issue of an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for PTSD is being remanded.

The Board has found that the veteran's tinnitus is likely related to military noise exposure and granted service connection for this condition. The case of bilateral hearing loss remains pending, with a need for additional development.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus disabilities are not related to his active military service. The claim for asbestos exposure is being remanded as there may be additional VA records that need to be obtained.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have any signs or symptoms of tinnitus, and therefore, an increased evaluation for this condition is denied.

The Board found that the veteran's tinnitus was not incurred in or aggravated by his active service and denied his claim.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, or a left arm disability as these conditions are not shown to be related to his active duty service.

The veteran's claims for service connection for right ear hearing loss, chronic right ear infection, tinnitus, mild anemia, and chronic low back pain are being remanded for further development.

The veteran's left ear hearing loss was granted service connection, while tinnitus and a disorder manifested by dizziness were denied. The claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for disability resulting from right eye surgery was also denied.

The Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus as there was no evidence of a chronic disability in service or within the applicable time period, nor any competent evidence relating these conditions to active service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral tinnitus, residuals of a left eye injury, and schizoaffective disorder as there was no evidence to support that these conditions were incurred in or aggravated by his military service.

The Board remands the claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus to the RO for further development.

The veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral recurrent tinnitus was denied as the maximum schedular evaluation has been assigned.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations of bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and a scar, status post appendectomy were denied. The claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus was remanded.

The appeal is REMANDED to the RO for further development and adjudication of the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, a left ear disorder other than hearing loss, stomach ulcer, and hepatitis C.

The Board denied the claim for service connection for lung cancer, as due to exposure to ionizing radiation. The claim for skin cancer was reopened based on new and material evidence showing a current diagnosis of basal cell carcinoma.

The appeal is remanded to the RO for a video conference hearing.