Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) Board decisions

The Board has granted service connection for hearing loss of the right ear and tinnitus, but denied service connection for hearing loss of the left ear. The veteran's hearing loss in the right ear is found to be related to his military service, while there is no evidence of a hearing loss disability in the left ear meeting VA criteria.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus did not have onset during active service, were not related to his active service, and are not compensable disabilities.

The Board has remanded the veteran's claims for chronic dermatitis and tinnitus due to insufficient evidence regarding their etiology. The veteran will be provided with a VA examination in both cases.

The Board found that the veteran's tinnitus is not attributable to service and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected disabilities do not render him unemployable on an extraschedular basis, and thus denied his claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU).

The veteran's tinnitus is rated at the maximum allowed, and he meets the criteria for TDIU due to his service-connected disabilities preventing him from securing or following any substantially gainful occupation.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for earlier effective dates for service connection for tinnitus and hearing loss, finding that no earlier effective dates are warranted based on the evidence of record.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further action, including scheduling a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the RO.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an effective date prior to June 7, 2004, for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities.

The VA determined that the veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were not incurred in active service or due to any incident therein, as there was no evidence of such conditions during his military service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss manifested during service and is related to his military service, granting service connection for this condition. The decision on tinnitus will be remanded as it requires further examination and opinion.

The veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus have been granted, with a 10% disability rating effective March 3, 2000. The issues of service connection for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and neck condition are not currently before the Board.

The Board found that neither hearing loss nor tinnitus is attributable to the veteran's military service, and thus denied both claims.

The Board found that the veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus did not manifest during service or within one year of separation, and were not related to military service. Asbestos-related pleural plaques do not cause current functional impairment.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that there was no evidence of such conditions during or within one year after service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's tinnitus is service-connected, as it was incurred during active duty due to exposure to aircraft engine noise.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are the result of noise exposure during his military service, warranting service connection.

The Board has granted the veteran's petition to reopen his claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The evidence now shows that these conditions are related to noise exposure during military service, leading to a grant of service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were not incurred in or related to service, including as a result of noise exposure. The claims for service connection are therefore denied.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to a lack of a valid medical nexus opinion and the need for an examination.