Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) decisions — 2015

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Memorial Healthcare Center in Owosso, Michigan on March 19, 2013 was denied as VA facilities were feasibly available to provide the care that was provided.

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

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claim for service connection for tinnitus and granted a finding that it is related to his military service. The hearing loss rating remains unchanged.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for sinusitis/rhinitis and tinnitus, and an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. The decision also dismissed the appeal on the issue of sinusitis/rhinitis.

The Veteran's appeal seeking service connection for bilateral hearing loss was withdrawn. The Board has determined that the evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's tinnitus is related to his service, and thus grants service connection for tinnitus.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including PTSD, render him unable to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current hearing loss disability for VA purposes and his tinnitus is not related to service. Therefore, both claims for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are denied.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's chronic tinnitus is not related to his period of active military service, including inservice noise exposure. As a result, the claim for service connection for chronic tinnitus is denied.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not render him unable to obtain and retain substantially gainful employment.

The Veteran's tinnitus had its onset during active military service and the Board found in favor of granting service connection for tinnitus. The case is being remanded to further clarify the nature and etiology of the Veteran's diagnosed bilateral hearing loss.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for pelvic alignment disorder, hyperlipidemia, neck disability, tinnitus, and right knee disability. The claims were not reopened due to lack of new and material evidence.

The Veteran's tinnitus is as likely as not related to in-service acoustic trauma, and the Board finds that it was incurred in service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus are not related to service, and therefore denied his claims for service connection.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions are being remanded due to the need for additional development and examination.

The Board finds that the Veteran's tinnitus is attributable to service exposure to noise during his active duty in Vietnam.

The Veteran experienced hearing acuity changes during active service due to noise exposure, and he has reported experiencing tinnitus since then. The Board finds that it is at least as likely as not that current tinnitus had its origins in active service.

The Board has dismissed the appeal due to the death of the appellant.

The Veteran's right ear hearing loss claim is denied as he does not have a current disability for VA purposes.,Service connection for tinnitus has been granted based on credible lay testimony and the examiner's opinion that military service likely contributed to acoustic trauma.,The Veteran's left ear hearing loss claim remains denied as his disability level does not warrant a compensable rating.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the Veteran's previously denied claim of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran currently experiences bilateral hearing loss, which is related to his in-service exposure to significant acoustic trauma during active service, including combat in the Republic of Vietnam.

The Board has remanded the case due to the Veteran's request for a videoconference hearing. The case will be returned to the AOJ after the hearing is conducted.