Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) Board decisions

The Board has granted a 10 percent rating for the service-connected residuals of a left tympanic membrane with purulent otitis, an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss, and denied any increase in evaluation for tinnitus.

The Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding no competent evidence of a nexus between current disabilities and service.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, as well as his claim for service connection for a cervical spine condition were denied by the RO. The RO found that the veteran did not meet the criteria for compensable ratings or service connection based on direct evidence.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a higher rating for tinnitus, finding that the maximum schedular rating of 10 percent is appropriate and that separate evaluations for each ear are not warranted under Diagnostic Code 6260.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current tinnitus is due to noise exposure in service, and grants service connection for this condition. The hearing loss claim is denied as there is no evidence of a current disability meeting VA compensation criteria.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased disability evaluation for his tinnitus, finding that a maximum schedular evaluation of 10 percent is appropriate under current regulations.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a higher initial evaluation of his tinnitus, finding that the current 10 percent rating adequately reflects the severity of the disability.

The veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are being remanded to the RO due to the need for additional development, including a VA examination.

The veteran's appeal for an earlier effective date for service connection for tinnitus was dismissed as he did not file a timely Substantive Appeal.

The Board has determined that the veteran incurred bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and Meniere's disease due to service exposure. Service connection is granted for all three conditions.

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that these conditions are due to noise exposure in service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for separate initial 10 percent disability ratings for bilateral tinnitus, finding that only a single 10 percent rating is authorized under current regulations.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including a VA examination to assess the nature and etiology of his claimed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for service connection for tinnitus, as he did not have a current diagnosis of tinnitus at the time of his July 2003 examination.

The veteran's appeal for an increased disability rating for service-connected tinnitus was dismissed as the veteran withdrew his appeal prior to a decision being made.

The Board has granted service connection for chloracne, right ear hearing loss, and tinnitus. The claim for malaria was denied due to lack of new and material evidence. The skin disorder claim is pending as the exposure basis is not specified.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to separate 10 percent disability ratings for bilateral tinnitus, finding that a single 10 percent rating was appropriate under the applicable regulations.

The veteran's disability ratings do not meet the eligibility requirements for Dependents' Educational Assistance under Chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for separate 10 percent disability ratings for each ear for his tinnitus, finding that under the current Diagnostic Code 6260 and previous versions of Diagnostic Code 6260, a single 10 percent evaluation is allowed for recurrent tinnitus.

The Board has determined that the veteran is already in receipt of a 10 percent disability rating for service-connected bilateral tinnitus, which represents the maximum schedular evaluation possible. Therefore, there is no legal basis to assign a higher rating.