Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) decisions — 2013

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate medical opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran is required to undergo a new VA examination to determine if his current hearing loss and tinnitus are related to service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his active duty service, warranting service connection for these conditions.

The Board has decided that further development is needed, including obtaining VA treatment records from the Upland VA clinic. The Veteran's claims for service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus will be remanded to the RO.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not render him unemployable as of July 14, 2009. His combined disability rating is 80 percent with consideration of the bilateral factor.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current hearing loss disability for VA compensation purposes and therefore, service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. The claim of tinnitus was also denied as there is no evidence of a current disability.

The Board has determined that the submitted evidence is not new and material, thus denying the Veteran's requests to reopen his claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus.

The Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and a disability manifested by jaundice as there was no evidence of current disabilities or a nexus to service.

The Board found no evidence of hearing loss or tinnitus during service and concluded that the current conditions are not related to military service, including exposure to noise. The Veteran's claims for service connection were denied.

The Veteran's tinnitus is found to be related to his active duty service, and the claim for service connection is granted.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his left knee disability was denied. The Board found that the evidence did not show limitation of motion to 30 degrees or extension limited to 15 degrees, which would warrant a higher evaluation under Diagnostic Codes 5260 and 5261. Factors warranting TDIU on an extraschedular basis were also not present.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at a non-VA hospital due to an emergency visit in 2006 was denied because he did not meet the eligibility criteria under VA regulations, specifically failing to have received medical services within the 24-month period preceding the treatment.

The Veteran's bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus are found to be related to in-service noise exposure, and service connection is granted for these conditions.

The Board found that the Veteran's tinnitus did not start during service and is not otherwise related to his military service, thus denying his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to his request for a hearing before the Board. The case will be scheduled for a Travel Board hearing at the RO level.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for left ear hearing loss disability, tinnitus, and diabetes mellitus, type II were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a finding of in-service incurrence or aggravation of these conditions.

The Board has remanded the case due to the Veteran's request for a videoconference hearing. The appeal is not yet decided.

The Veteran's tinnitus is found to be as likely as not related to his active duty service, and the claim for service connection is granted.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his in-service exposure to loud noise, including from heavy naval guns and machine guns. The criteria for service connection have been met.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his active service, meeting the criteria for direct service connection.

The Board has remanded the claim for TDIU due to inadequate examination and lack of compliance with prior remand instructions. The appellant is required to provide information about her husband's work and educational history, as well as an additional VA medical opinion regarding his ability to secure or follow substantially gainful employment.