CAVC Case 02-742: Hearing Loss
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · June 17, 2005 · IVERS, Chief Judge
This is a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims — the federal court that reviews Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions, one level above the Board. Court decisions can vacate, reverse, or affirm what the Board did.
Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.
Dependent add-ons start at a 30% rating. Child-only and dependent-parent rates: see the full 2026 pay chart.
2026 base rates, all ratings (veteran alone)
| Rating | Monthly (2026, incl. 2.8% COLA) |
|---|---|
| 10% | $180.42 |
| 20% | $356.66 |
| 30% | $552.47 |
| 40% | $795.84 |
| 50% | $1,132.90 |
| 60% | $1,435.02 |
| 70% | $1,808.45 |
| 80% | $2,102.15 |
| 90% | $2,362.30 |
| 100% | $3,938.58 |
Conditions Claimed
Referral disclosure: VetAid earns a referral fee if you become a paying REE Medical client through this link — it helps keep this site free. REE Medical provides paid medical evidence; it is not a law firm, VSO, or claims agent, and VetAid has not independently verified its services. VSOs and VA-accredited representatives will help you file your claim at no cost, and no one can guarantee a rating increase.
Issues on Appeal
Hearing LossEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
She further maintains that the Board erred by ruling that her original service-connection claim in 1975 did not include a claim for non- Hodgkin's lymphoma.
The Board found: [B]ecause the RO construed the appellant's November 1995 claim as a request to conduct a de novo or new review of her original claim for DIC based on the same facts, i.
, the same facts, under a new law or new theory of legal entitlement but rather a request to reopen the original claim on a new factual basis as shown by new and material evidence submitted in 1995.
The Board's determination of an earlier effective date is reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review set forth in 38 U.
A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
The Board must provide an adequate statement of the reasons or bases for its decision.
An adequate statement of reasons or bases must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence that it finds persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the veteran.
Effective Date for Hodgkin's Disease The Board found that under § 3.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material
Find Similar Precedent for Your Claim
VetAid's analyzer maps your claim against thousands of real Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions like this one — surfacing the exact case law that supports your arguments.
Run my claim through VetAid →