Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) Board decisions

The VA denied the veteran's request for a higher evaluation for his service-connected tinnitus, stating that there is no provision in the rating criteria for separate evaluations for each ear. The RO found that the current criteria only allow for a single 10% evaluation for recurrent tinnitus and that separate ratings are not warranted under Diagnostic Code 6260.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for separate 10 percent disability ratings for each ear due to tinnitus, finding that only a single 10% rating is authorized regardless of whether the tinnitus is perceived as unilateral or bilateral.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for separate 10 percent disability ratings for each ear due to bilateral tinnitus, as such a rating is not allowed under current regulations.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions, including amblyopia and anopsia of the right eye, fungal infection (onychomycosis) of the hands and feet, stomach disorder, farsightedness, astigmatism, and presbyopia of the left eye, tinnitus, vertigo, fibromyalgia, and peripheral neuropathy. The claims were denied as not well grounded or without evidence linking these conditions to service.

The Board finds that the veteran's service-connected herniated nucleus pulposus of the lumbosacral spine does not warrant a disability rating in excess of 40 percent, as he does not have evidence of severe impairment resulting from recurring attacks with only intermittent relief.

The Board has found that the veteran had chronic left knee disorder with degenerative joint disease incurred during service. The veteran does not currently have a hearing loss disability within VA's definition of such a condition.

The Board has ordered a remand due to the need for further development and evaluation of the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral tinnitus. The case will be reviewed again after completion of the examination.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, tinnitus, gastrointestinal disorder, sinus disorder, and onychomycosis. Additional development is required to determine whether these conditions are related to active service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for separate 10 percent disability ratings for each ear due to tinnitus, as such a rating is not allowed under current regulations.

The Board has determined that the veteran's tinnitus is rated at 10 percent, and a separate rating for each ear is not warranted as per VA regulations.

The veteran's claim for a higher disability rating for bilateral tinnitus was denied as the current regulations do not allow for separate ratings for each ear.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus, to include separate evaluations for each ear. The claim was denied as there is no legal entitlement under current regulations.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for a higher rating for his service-connected bilateral tinnitus, currently rated at 10 percent.

The Board denied reopening the veteran's claims for service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus of the left ear due to lack of new and material evidence.

The VA denied an initial rating greater than 10 percent for service-connected tinnitus, as the veteran's claim was already rated under DC 6260 and separate ratings for each ear are not allowed.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased rating for tinnitus, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. The decision found that a separate evaluation for each ear was not warranted due to the prohibition of greater than a 10 percent schedular evaluation for service-connected tinnitus.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus, finding that a maximum schedular rating is available under Diagnostic Code 6260 and that separate ratings for each ear are not allowed.

The Board has remanded the case due to procedural defects in notification and development under the VCAA. The veteran is required to provide additional evidence or argument while the case is in remand status.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to a need to obtain witness statements and review new evidence.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to incomplete VCAA notice and because a statement of the case on tinnitus is needed.