CAVC Case 09-3224: Hearing Loss
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2009-04-30 · HAGEL, 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 ConnectionHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
[name redacted] was not entitled to benefits for bilateral hearing loss was not clearly erroneous;because the September 2003 VA medical examination,including the November 2003 addendum,was adequate;and because the Board provided an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision,the Court will affirm the April 30,2009,Board decision.
The appellant was exposed to acoustic trauma in service,but found that the preponderance of the evidence indicated that his current hearing disability was not etiologically related to the in-service noise exposure.
Moreover,the Board determined that there was no evidence that the appellant.
The appellant submitted an informal brief arguing that (1)the Board's determination that he was not entitled to benefits for bilateral hearing loss was clearly erroneous; (2)the September 2003 VA medical examination,including the November 2003 addendum,is inadequate;and (3)the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision.
The appellant's informal brief an argument that the Board's determination that he was not entitled to 3 direct or presumptive service connection for bilateral hearing loss was clearly erroneous.
Service connection on a direct basis is established when the record before the Secretary contains lay or medical evidence of (1)a current disability,(2)incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service,and (3)a nexus between the in-service injury or disease and the current disability.
However,the Board determined that there was no evidence of a nexus between his current disability and his in-service noise exposure sufficient to satisfy the third requirement.
The appellant's lay statements regarding nexus,including his statements to the VA examiner in September 2003 that he first experienced hearing loss in service in 1996 or 1997,but determined that,in light of the negative evidence of record indicating that his hearing was normal upon discharge from the military,the appellant.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam
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 →