CAVC Case 13-0540: Hearing Loss
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2015-02-09 · HAGEL
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 LossTinnitusTBIHeartRadiculopathyHypertension
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
On appeal,the appellant contends that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for rejecting his testimony concerning the continuity of his symptoms after service.
The appellant's military occupation but denied service connection for tinnitus,finding no nexus between his current tinnitus and service.
The RO denied his claim to reopen,finding that no new and material evidence on the issue of nexus had been submitted.
The appellant filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD)in which he stated that his November 2010 statement should be considered new and material evidence.
The appellant's November 2010 and April 2011 statements were new and material evidence,but denying the claim.
The Board stated that the statements were new and material evidence because they suggest chronicity of symptoms in service and continuity of tinnitus after service, including providing a reason for the failure to mention tinnitus after service or to claim service connection for tinnitus for years after service and they offer an explanation for why he did not report or complain of tinnitus symptoms prior to his January 2009 claim.
The Board,however,determined that the weight of the competent evidence was against a nexus between his current tinnitus and the loud noise exposure during service.
The Board determined that the May 2009 VA audiological opinion was entitled to great probative value.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material
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 →