Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) decisions — 2014

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not render him unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation, thus the claim for TDIU is denied.

The Board found no evidence of a nexus between the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus and his active military service, including noise exposure. The Veteran's claims for service connection were denied.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including scheduling VA examinations and obtaining records. The issues on appeal include service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and residuals of a head injury.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development and a travel board hearing.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current hearing loss disability or tinnitus related to service, and his left hand tremor is not related to service. The claim for service connection for these conditions is therefore denied.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining an addendum opinion from a VA examiner regarding the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran is seeking service connection for these conditions.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's tinnitus is service-connected, but his bilateral hearing loss remains in dispute. The claim for bilateral hearing loss will be remanded to obtain a new VA examination and opinion.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's tinnitus is related to in-service noise exposure and grants service connection for this condition.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are related to his period of service, resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran.

The Board found that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are not related to his active service, including in-service noise exposure. The evidence does not establish a nexus between these conditions and his military service.

The Veteran's current bilateral tinnitus disability is found to be related to service, specifically the exposure to loud noise during his military service. The Board has granted service connection for this condition.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are etiologically related to in-service noise exposure, resulting in service connection being granted for both conditions.

The Veteran's claims for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are being remanded due to the need for additional medical opinions regarding their etiology. The issues of service connection will be resolved prior to addressing the claim for tinnitus.

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that the Veteran's current diagnoses are related to his period of active service. Service connection for hepatitis C was not addressed due to a lack of sufficient evidence.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus due to new evidence submitted since the last denial. The Board finds that there is at least a reasonable possibility that the Veteran's current conditions are related to his military service, including exposure to noise during active duty.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's tinnitus is likely attributable to his service, and thus grants the claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current right ear hearing loss disability, and therefore cannot establish service connection for this condition.,Service connection is granted for tinnitus as it was caused by his active service.

The Board has remanded the case due to the Veteran's failure to appear for a scheduled video-conference hearing. The case is now pending and will be handled in an expeditious manner.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's tinnitus and sinus disorders are related to her military service, with the exception of the issue regarding traumatic brain injury which is referred back to the AOJ.

The Board has remanded the case for further development to ensure full compliance with its instructions regarding etiological opinions.