CAVC Case 13-0949: Hearing Loss
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2013-02-28 · BARTLEY, 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 LossHipAnkleSkinHeartDiabetesEyeHypertension
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
Although most of his service medical records (SMRs)were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the 1 The Board also remanded the issue of whether new and material evidence had been received to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for a hernia.
In February 1998,the Board denied the claims, and the veteran did not appeal.
The Board denied the foot and circulatory claims because it found no evidence of a current lower extremity disability that had not already been attributed to a non-service-related cause (R.
The appellant argues that the Board erred in failing to credit [his]accounts of injury and symptoms related to his claimed conditions, which he asserts are supported by the evidence of record.
He contends that the Board's error in assessing his credibility led to the Board further erring in finding that he was not entitled to VA medical examinations to 4 determine whether he has current foot and circulatory disorders and whether his eye disorders are related to service.
The Board,as factfinder,is obligated to assess the credibility of lay evidence and determine whether it is sufficient to support a claim.
As with any finding on a material issue of fact and law presented on the record,the Board must support its credibility determination with adequate reasons or bases that enable the claimant to understand the precise basis for that determination and facilitate review in this Court.
The Board is also obligated to ensure that VA has complied with its duty to assist claimants in developing their claims.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material|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 →