CAVC Case 03-2135: Hearing Loss
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2003-08-19 · DAVIS , 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
Hearing LossTinnitusHeadacheHeart
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
Service ConnectionReopenHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
innitus (a noise in the ears such as ringing, buzzing, roaring, or clicking), and (3) found that no new and material evidence had been presented to reopen his service- connection bilateral hearing loss claim.
In November 1994, the RO denied awarding him compensable-service connection for his right-ear fungal infection and determined that no new and material evidence had been presented to reopen his previously denied claim for bilateral hearing loss.
The examiner also noted that, in his medical opinion, the veteran's subacute bacterial endocarditis he suffered from in 1974 is not related to [the] fungal infection he suffered from during the military in 1945.
In February 2001, the RO denied his service-connection claim for his valvular heart condition, endocarditis and tinnitus and also found that no new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen his previously denied service-connection claim for bilateral hearing loss.
5103(a) by not informing the veteran that he needed to submit a nexus medical opinion linking his endocarditis to his in-service ear condition and failed to inform him of the requirements for new and material evidence, (3) the Board failed to properly apply the equipoise standard as required under 38 U.
5107(b) with regard to his heart- condition claims, and (4) the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases pursuant to 38 U.
159(c) provides in pertinent part: (c) VA's duty to assist claimants in obtaining evidence .
In its August 2003 decision on appeal, the Board concluded that the Secretary had satisfied his duty-to-assist requirements on the grounds that [t]he evidence provides a complete basis for addressing the merits of the veteran's claim.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Duty To Assist
Find Similar Decisions 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 →