CAVC Case 13-2506: Hearing Loss
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2013-07-03 · SCHOELEN, 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 LossTinnitusRespiratory
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
Hearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant,through counsel,appeals a July 3, 2013,Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)decision in which the Board denied his claims for disability compensation for tinnitus,hearing loss,and chronic rhinosinusitis.
The parties asserted that remand was required because the Board erred in not addressing the competency and credibility of the appellant's lay statements when finding that in-service noise exposure could not be conceded,and because the Board did not adequately address whether VA satisfied its duty to assist the appellant in the development of his claim, namely in providing a medical examination or opinion,in light of that lay evidence.
Consequently, the examiner opined that the appellant's hearing loss was less likely than not related to service.
The examiner also found that the appellant's tinnitus was less likely than not related to service because there was no evidence of noise injury at separation in April 1964 and the appellant reported the onset of his tinnitus was more than fifteen years after separation from military service.
After a Supplemental Statement of the Case was issued on May 24,2012,the appellant, through counsel,responded,arguing that the audiological examination and opinion were inadequate because the examiner did not consider the totality of acoustic trauma the [v]eteran was subjected to during active service,nor did the examiner render an opinion based on the totality of evidence in the record.
The appellant further maintained that the regional office (RO)did not consider and address whether the [v]eteran's lay statements can be competent evidence of a nexus between his [hearing and tinnitus disabilities]and in-service noise exposure.
In the July 2013 decision on appeal,the Board found that,based on the April 2012 VA examination,the appellant had current hearing loss and tinnitus disabilities.
However,relying on the VA examiner's negative medical opinion,the Board concluded that there was no evidence to support a nexus between the present hearing loss and tinnitus and in-service exposure and denied his claims.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|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 →