CAVC Case 22-1946: Hearing Loss
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2024-09-16 · MEREDITH, 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 LossTinnitusHeadacheSkinHeartRespiratory
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
VA advised him that the claim was previously denied in February 1981 and that he needed to submit new and material evidence to reopen it.
The examiner determined that the veteran's hearing loss was less likely than not related to service,R.
In July 2017, the RO denied the veteran's claim for benefits for bilateral hearing loss but did not consider entitlement to benefits for tinnitus.
Appellant Regarding the claim for benefits for CAD,the appellant argues that the Board failed to (1)address the veteran's expressly raised assertion that his service medical records were lost or incomplete;(2)ensure that VA satisfied its duty to assist the veteran in obtaining records and in verifying his in-service exposure to herbicides,including Agent Orange;and (3)address his request for an examination to evaluate his heart condition.
She also contends that the Board failed to address the [v]eteran's symptoms of chest pain and unknown hemoptysis during service and failed to address materially favorable evidence of record that supports exposure to Agent Orange, id.
Finally,the appellant maintains that the Board did not address or adjudicate the veteran's claim for benefits for tinnitus,which she asserts has either been pending since August 1998 or was reasonably raised by the June 2017 VA examination report.
Finally,on the duty to assist,the Secretary asserts that any 6 Case:22-1946 Page: 7 of 12 Filed:09/16/2024 failure on the part of the Board to address the veteran's request for an examination to evaluate his heart condition is,at worst,harmless error in light of the Board's denial of the claim based on its conclusion that the veteran was not exposed to herbicides in service.
Regarding the in-service treatment for hemoptysis,chest pain, and a skin condition that the appellant contends the Board failed to address,the Secretary asserts that the appellant's position[] that these symptoms 'may be consistent with symptoms of angina'and that the [v]eteran's treatment for a skin condition may indicate exposure to Agent Orange are purely speculative and not of any probative value.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
No Nexus|Not New Material|Duty To Assist
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 →