CAVC Case 17-3373: Hearing Loss
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2017-07-21 · 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 LossSleep ApneaHeartRespiratoryHypertension
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 LossSleep Apnea
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Board found that service connection was not warranted because the appellant did not exhibit a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes.
The Court found that the Board erred in its reasons-or-bases by not discussing the May 2006 private medical treatment record and that it was prejudicial because the absence of objective results from the May 2006 audiometry tests did not enable the Court to review the matter.
The Board found that service connection was not warranted because the appellant did not exhibit bilateral hearing loss for VA compensation purposes either in service or since separation from service.
In doing so, the Board noted that a May 2006 private treatment record stated that audiometry testing had been completed but did not state decibel levels of hearing loss and,therefore,the report did not serve to substantiate the claim.
The parties agreed that remand was warranted because the Board failed to ensure that the duty to assist had been satisfied concerning the May 2006 private audiogram results under Savage ,24 Vet.
The Board denied the claim because the appellant did not exhibit a hearing loss disability for VA compensation purposes and concluded that [a]bsent a showing of current disability,service connection is not [warranted].
Once the Secretary undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a service-connection claim,even if not statutorily obligated to do so,he must provide an adequate one.
Whether a medical opinion is adequate 3 is a finding of fact,which this Court reviews under the 'clearly erroneous'standard.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
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 →