CAVC Case 07-1599: Hearing Loss
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2007-05-08 · LANCE, 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
Service ConnectionReopenHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant does not present any argument concerning the Board's determination that no new and material evidence had been received sufficient to reopen his claims for service connection for a heart condition,residuals of a head injury,and residuals of a shrapnel wound to the mouth and gums.
Duty to Notify The appellant asserts that the Board erred in concluding that VA satisfied its duty to notify him in accordance with the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA),Pub.
Finally,while the Board noted that the January 2004 notice letter did not ask the [appellant] to provide any evidence in his possession that pertains to the claims, 1 the Board found that, given the private medical information he has authorized VA to obtain on his behalf and the evidence he has submitted in the form of lay statements and private evidence, the appellant had demonstrated actual knowledge of that requirement.
Furthermore,the Board found that the January 2004 notice letter advised the [appellant]that the VA needed 'additional information and evidence.
In light of those findings,the Board concluded that any failure to make the specific request is non-prejudicial harmless error.
3 finding that the Secretary satisfied his duty to notify is not clearly erroneous.
2007)(Court reviews Board's finding of compliant VCAA notice under the clearly erroneous standard of review); Hersey v.
91,94 (1992)( A factual 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.
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 →