CAVC Case 92-738: Hearing Loss
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · October 5, 1993 · FARLEY
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
Hearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
Before FARLEY, MANKIN, and HOLDAWAY, Judges MANKIN, Judge: Appellant appeals a February 14, 1992, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) which determined that there was no new and material evidence presented to reopen his claim for entitlement to service connection for the residuals of a jaw injury and for hearing loss.
Because appellant has not submitted new and material evidence since the BVA's final disallowance of his claim in January 1975, this Court will affirm the February 1992 BVA decision.
After appellant submitted these records, reports, and statements to reopen his claim, he was informed by letter in December 1978 that these documents did not constitute new and material evidence.
In January 1990, the RO issued a confirmed rating decision denying appellant service connection for the residuals of his jaw injury and his loss of hearing, stating that he had failed to submit new and material evidence to reopen his claim.
The BVA determined that appellant had failed to submit new and material evidence to reopen his claim to establish that the injuries he sustained in the October 1944 incident were in the line of duty and not the result of his own willful misconduct or that his hearing loss was service connected.
§ 5108 (West 1991), the Secretary must reopen a previously and finally disallowed claim when "new and material evidence" is presented or secured with respect to that claim.
First, the Board must determine whether the evidence presented or secured since the prior disallowance of the claim is "new and material.
Second, if the evidence is new and material, then the case is reopened and the Board must evaluate appellant's claim in light of all the evidence, both new and old.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material
Find Similar Precedent 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 →