CAVC Case 14-1330: Hearing Loss
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2012-03-01 · 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
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
Regarding VA's duty to assist,the Board found the March 2012 audiological examination adequate to enable the Board to make an informed decision on the claims,noting that the examiner considered the appellant's medical history and noise exposure in service,and provided an opinion with supporting rationale.
The Board determined that a new examination was not necessary to consider the appellant's training as a field artillery specialist because the VA examiner already assumed .
Turning to the merits of the appellant's claims, the Board conceded that the evidence established a current disability and hazardous noise exposure during service,but found that the preponderance of the evidence weighed against a relationship between the appellant's hearing loss and tinnitus and his in-service noise exposure.
In particular, the Board found the March 2012 VA examiner's opinion highly probative,stating that her opinions are supported by a clearly articulated rationale that is consistent with the evidence of record,and that her opinion outweighed the May 2011 treating physician's opinion,which was not supported by an explanation,and failed to account for the fact that the appellant's hearing was normal at separation and that hearing loss did not manifest until several years after service.
Additionally,the Board found the appellant incompetent to provide an opinion regarding nexus and further found the appellant's history,reported in his March 2012 statement in support of claim and NA Form 13055,incredible.
ANALYSIS Establishing entitlement to disability compensation benefits generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances,lay evidence of (1)a current disability;(2)incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service;and (3)a nexus between the claimed in-service injury or disease and the current disability.
A finding of service connection,or no service connection, is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard.
5 A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the Court,after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
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 →