CAVC Case 24-2877: Hearing Loss
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2025-05-23 · 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 LossTinnitusShoulderHeartRadiculopathy
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 appellant underwent a VA examination for artery and vein conditions in May 2023; the examiner opined that there was no pathology to warrant an upper extremity PVD diagnosis;he diagnosed lower extremity PVD and opined that the condition is not related to service.
In April 2024,the Board denied disability compensation for bilateral hearing loss,bilateral upper extremity PVD,and bilateral lower extremity PVD.
85,86 (1992), the appellant appears to assert that the Board failed to adequately consider the reports his agent submitted of studies performed on mice concerning the potential relationship between noise exposure and delayed onset of hearing loss and the potential relationship between dioxins and cardiovascular disease.
The appellant also challenges the adequacy of the VA nexus opinions obtained for his claims,asserting that the VA examiners did not review the articles that his agent submitted and that their opinions were based on incorrect facts.
3 Case:24-2877 Page: 4 of 10 Filed:05/23/2025 postservice civilian occupation even though he wore hearing protection;(2)did not consider whether the explosion he experienced during service aggravated his preexisting left ear hearing loss;and (3)did not consider that his military occupation had a high probability of hazardous noise exposure.
Regarding PVD,he additionally contends that the VA examinations are outdated because VA has added more medical conditions to the list of those presumed to be related to service due to herbicide exposure and that the examiners did not consider when he stopped smoking.
The Secretary avers that,although the Board noted that the appellant is not service connected for a heart condition and therefore cannot establish secondary service- connection for lower extremity PVD based on such a condition,pursuant to DeLisio v.
Specifically,the Secretary avers that the Board did not consider whether the November 2016 and February 2017 VA audiology reports were adequate given that [the a]ppellant,in evidence that 2 The Court notes that the appellant raises arguments concerning service connection for tinnitus.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
No Nexus|Not Service Connected|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 →