CAVC Case 22-4960: Hearing Loss
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2022-04-27 · 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 LossTinnitusSkinDiabetesRespiratory
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
The next month, another audiologist provided a negative nexus opinion.
The following year,VA obtained a nexus opinion;the physician assistant noted that the appellant's CT did not show any pleural plaques, and he opined that the appellant does not have a respiratory illness caused by asbestosis.
on active duty, and he opined that the appellant's hearing loss was less likely than not related to service.
As for the appellant's bladder condition,the Board found that the July 2020 opinion was inadequate because the examiner relied extensively on the lack of evidence in the service medical records.
3 Regarding the appellant's respiratory condition, the Board determined that remand was required in part because a 6 mm nodule in the right middle lobe was noted in a February 2019 examination report,and [q]uestionable nodules of the left lung were also identified in a February 2011 imaging study, but no examination report of record addressed whether the .
Finally,the Board observed that the February 2021 hearing loss examiner relied in part on the absence of in-service records and failed to consider the possibility of delayed-onset hearing loss.
The examiner provided the following negative nexus opinion and supporting rationale: The claimed condition of urinary disorder is less likely than not related to the [appellant's]service[-]related event of bladder pain,an inability to urinate,and subsequent bloody urination,after being forced to run with a full bladder, and/or his multiple reported falls,during service.
The examiner provided a negative nexus opinion,reasoning as follows: The claimed condition of respiratory disorder, clarified as COPD during the exam[ination],is less likely than not related to the [appellant's]exposure to asbestos during service.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
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 →