CAVC Case 24-4708: Hearing Loss
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2025-12-05 · PIETSCH, 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
The appellant's conceded in-service noise exposure;thus,any future hearing loss was less likely as not related to such noise exposure because there was not currently any evidence of noise-induced damage.
In March 2020,VA determined that new and relevant evidence had been submitted to reopen the claim for service connection for tinnitus; but it could not award service connection for tinnitus because there was no evidence of a nexus to service.
In reciting the evidence,the Board found that hearing loss,as that condition is defined by VA,was not shown during the September 2013 clinical audiology evaluation,nor was it shown during the November 2013 or February 2020VA examinations.
The appellant the benefit of the doubt,the Board found that he has hearing loss in his right ear that meets VA's criteria for hearing loss.
As a result,the Board determined that the June 2019private medical opinionwas not probative, 4 Case:24-4708 Page: 5 of 12 Filed:12/05/2025 because it was based on those discredited reports of an in-service onset of hearing loss.
The appellant's ]claims, the Board concluded,service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus was not warranted.
The appellant argues that the Board failed to appropriately apply the benefit of the doubt doctrine when it rejected his lay evidence of the onset and frequency of his hearingloss and tinnitus symptoms,and that the Board clearlyerred in relyingon the November 2013 and February 2020 VA examinations to deny his claim for tinnitus.
The Secretary disagrees that the Board erred and urges affirmance.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus
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 →