CAVC Case 24-6361: Hearing Loss
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2026-01-06 · 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
Hearing LossDiabetesArthritisProstateHypertension
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 ConnectionEffective DateHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Board noted that the RO had not afforded the veteran a medical examination to determine whether his bilateral hand osteoarthritis was related to service,but the Board found no examinationrequiredbecause there is no indication of an in-service event,injury, or disease.
The Board found the appellant competent and credible in reporting symptoms of pain associated with his hands,but the Board noted that the appellant had neither asserted that his bilateral hand osteoarthritis began during or was otherwise related to service,nor specifically alleged an in-service event or injury which could serve as the origin of his right-or left-hand osteoarthritis.
And the Board found that service treatment records lacked complaints of or treatment for a bilateral hand disability,including osteoarthritis.
Further,the Board found no medical opinion associating the appellant's bilateral hand osteoarthritis with service.
The Board found the appellant's bare claim of entitlement the only evidence of a medical nexus between the appellant's current osteoarthritis and active-duty service,and the Board found the appellant was not a medical professional who could diagnose osteoarthritis.
The Board concluded that neither the appellant,nor the record have [sic] suggested an origin of the appellant's claimed bilateral hand osteoarthritis as related to service.
The appellant argues that the Board erred in assessing service connection under a causation standard stricter than but-for causation.
Alternatively,he argues that because the Board failed to address his argument that the but-for legal standard governs service connection,the Board provided an inadequate statement of reasons or bases for finding that the RO had not erred in failingto provide a predecisional medical examination.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Dismissed Procedural
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 →