Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) Board decisions

The VA has determined that the veteran's tinnitus, currently rated at 10 percent, does not warrant a higher rating as there is no legal basis for separate ratings for each ear under current regulations.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for separate evaluations for each ear of his tinnitus, finding that a single 10 percent evaluation is appropriate under all versions of Diagnostic Code 6260. The veteran was granted service connection and a 10 percent disability rating for bilateral tinnitus as of August 7, 2002.

The Board denied service connection for tinnitus, residuals of arthroplasties of the right and left 5th toes, hypertension, a scar of the abdomen, and blood in the urine. The veteran's claims were based on presumed exposure to noise during active duty.

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral tinnitus. The remaining issues of service connection for rheumatoid arthritis, chronic low back disorder, bilateral amblyopia, and chronic head injury residuals are remanded to the RO.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a schedular rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral tinnitus, finding that only a single 10 percent rating is allowed under current regulations.

The Board has ordered further development due to pending issues and new evidence. The case is now remanded for the RO to issue a Statement of the Case on the issue of an original rating greater than 10 percent for tinnitus.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection due to bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that the correct effective date is May 10, 2001.

The veteran's claim for separate 10 percent disability ratings for each ear pursuant to the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6260 (2003) for his bilateral tinnitus was denied as a matter of law.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral tinnitus is rated at a maximum of 10 percent, as per current regulations. The claim for an increased rating beyond this level is denied.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining missing service records and arranging for VA examinations. The veteran's claims for service connection are pending.

The veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for tinnitus, currently rated at 10 percent, is denied as the maximum schedular rating has been assigned and a separate evaluation in each ear is not warranted.

The VA denied the veteran's request for a separate 10 percent evaluation for tinnitus in each ear, as only one 10 percent rating is allowed under current regulations.

The veteran's claim for a higher initial rating for bilateral tinnitus was denied as only one 10 percent evaluation is assignable for recurrent tinnitus, whether the sound is perceived in one ear, both ears, or in the head.

The veteran's tinnitus was granted service connection with a 10 percent evaluation effective June 10, 2003. The appeal is for an increased evaluation.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for service-connected tinnitus, finding that a single 10 percent rating is the maximum available under current regulations.

The Board denied the claim of clear and unmistakable error in the 2002 rating decision that granted service connection for tinnitus with a 10% evaluation, finding no CUE.

The Board found no evidence of a link between the veteran's military service and his current diagnosed conditions, including bilateral hearing loss, bilateral otitis media, and tinnitus. Therefore, the claims for service connection were denied.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to determine the etiology of the veteran's claimed bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, including obtaining medical records and arranging for a VA examination.

The Board has determined that the RO's decision denying service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus should be remanded to allow for additional development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination.

The case is being returned to the RO for additional development due to new evidence and a remand order.