CAVC Case 24-1222: Hearing Loss
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2025-06-05 · 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
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
At a VA audiological examination the following month,the examiner rendered a negative nexus opinion.
In an August 2020 remand,the Board found that the March 2018 VA examiner's rationale [wa]s conclusory and thus ordered VA to obtain an addendum medical opinion.
In an October 2020 VA medical opinion,the clinician opined that the appellant's hearing loss was less likely than not related to service;based on a review of the appellant's medical records and relevant medical literature,she explained as follows: There is no significant permanent shift in hearing thresholds beyond test variability from entrance to separation,which is objective evidence of no permanent auditory damage on active duty from conceded noise.
There must be a nexus of auditory damage to relate current hearing loss to military noise and not another etiology.
The examiner opined that the appellant's left ear hearing loss was less likely than not related to service.
There must be a nexus of auditory damage to relate current hearing loss to military noise exposure and not another etiology.
Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that the Board erred by relying on the June 2023 medical opinion, which he contends contains multiple discrepancies and inconsistencies.
Specifically,he avers that the examiner (1)reported,with regard to the appellant's right ear,that she could not opine as to etiology without resorting to speculation, yet she provided a negative nexus opinion;(2)rendered a negative nexus opinion as to the appellant's left ear using the same rationale, verbatim,as the rationale she provided for the appellant's right ear; (3)acknowledged that the appellant reported hearing loss while in service and conceded that he 3 Case:24-1222 Page: 4 of 8 Filed:06/05/2025 was exposed to noise;and (4)documented that she was unable to obtain/maintain seal for both of [the a]ppellant's ears for acoustic remittance, without explaining whether it affected the examination results or her opinion.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|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 →