Back to BVA DecisionsDENIEDSpecial Benefit NO SPECIAL BENEFIT Docket No. 250417-535842
Case A26030659
MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER · 2026 · Case ID: A26030659
Summary
The veteran served from October 1979 to May 1980. The veteran appealed the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and vertigo, and also appealed the denial of a rating in excess of 10 percent for insomnia and service connection for hypertension. The veteran subsequently withdrew the appeals for hypertension and insomnia, leading to their dismissal. The Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss, finding that the evidence persuasively indicated it was less likely than not that the veteran had a disabling hearing loss for VA purposes. Multiple VA audiological examinations showed inconsistent and unreliable results due to the veteran's poor response reliability, while VA treatment records from August 2023 and August 2024, corroborated by multiple VA examiners' observations, indicated normal hearing or mild high-frequency loss with good speech recognition, contradicting private audiological tests. For vertigo, the Board denied service connection, finding that the veteran's claims of dizziness and imbalance since service were not chronologically established and were contradicted by medical records. While the veteran and his wife believed vertigo was caused by service-connected tinnitus, they lacked the medical expertise for such an opinion, and the VA examiner's opinion that vertigo was less likely caused by tinnitus was consistent with other medical findings. The Board found no medical opinion of record that challenged the VA examiner's opinion, thus denying service connection for vertigo.
Full Decision Text
Citation Nr: A26030659 Decision Date: 04/03/26 Archive Date: 04/03/26 DOCKET NO. 250417-535842 DATE: April 3, 2026 ORDER The appeal for service connection for hypertension is dismissed. The appeal for a rating in excess of 10 percent for insomnia is dismissed. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Service connection for vertigo is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Prior to the promulgation of a decision on this appeal, the Board received written notification from the Veteran requesting the appeal regarding service connection for hypertension and an increased rating for insomnia be withdrawn. 2. The evidence of record persuasively favors the conclusion that it is less likely than not that the Veteran has a hearing loss disability in either ear for VA purposes. 3. The evidence of record persuasively favors the conclusion that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's vertigo was the result of either his active service or his service connected tinnitus. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. The criteria for?dismissal?of the appeal regarding service connection for hypertension and an increased rating for insomnia have been met.?38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§?3.2500, 20.205. 2. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. 3. The criteria for service connection for vertigo have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from October 1979 to May 1980. A December 2024 rating decision denied service connection for hearing loss and vertigo (claimed as vertigo, loss of balance, and staggering), and granted service connection for insomnia disorder and assigned a 10 percent rating. A February 2025 rating decision denied service connection for hypertension. In April 2025, the Veteran appealed the December 2024 and February 2025 rating decisions to the Board by filing a VA Form 10182 and selecting the Evidence Docket, a process allowing the Board to review the evidence up to the rating decisions on appeal, plus any evidence submitted within 90 days from the filing of Form 10182. Of note, a rating decision dated March 12, 2025 denied service connection for vertigo and a rating decision dated March 26, 2025 denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss. Although the Veteran did not list these two rating decisions on his appeal (Form 10182) filed in April 2025, the Board will interpret the Form 10182 more generously to include these two rating decisions in this appeal, as the Veteran clearly intended to appeal the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ)'s decision denying service connection for hearing loss and vertigo. Withdrawal 1. Service connection for hypertension 2. A rating in excess of 10 percent for insomnia The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. Withdrawal may be made by the Veteran or by his authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. In May 2025, the Veteran submitted a written statement withdrawing his appeal regarding a rating in excess of 10 percent for insomnia. In July 2025, the Veteran submitted a written statement withdrawing his appeal regarding service connection for hypertension. No allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration with respect to the appeal regarding these two issues were raised. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal on these two issues, and it is therefore dismissed. Service connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of In July 2025, the Veteran submitted a written statement withdrawing his appeal regarding service connection for hypertension. No allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration with respect to the appeal regarding these two issues were raised. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal on these two issues, and it is therefore dismissed. Service connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service (nexus). Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection can also be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to, or the result of a service connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a). 3. Service connection for hearing loss The Veteran is seeking service connection for bilateral hearing loss. In his claim dated July 2024, he contends that his hearing loss was caused by his service connected tinnitus. A VA audiological examination in October 2019 showed the following results: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 Maryland CNC R. Ear CNT CNT CNT CNT CNT 100% L. Ear CNT CNT CNT CNT CNT 100% The examiner indicated that the puretone threshold could not be tested (CNT). The examiner noted that the puretone responses were provided as profound hearing loss bilaterally, which was not in agreement with bone conduction thresholds or with normal speech results. The examiner pointed out that the Veteran was able to communicate with the examiner with his back turned and speaking at a normal volume. A VA audiological examination in November 2024 showed the following results: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 Maryland CNC R. Ear CNT CNT CNT CNT CNT CNT% L. Ear CNT CNT CNT CNT CNT CNT% The examiner indicated that the puretone threshold and Maryland CNC could not be tested (CNT), as the Veteran's response reliability was deemed poor. The examiner noted that the Veteran came in and was able to have a conversation at a normal level with no issues. SRT (Speech Recognition Threshold) was obtained at 30 dB in the right year and 25 dB in the left year. Pure tone testing then began and PTA (Pure Tone Audiometry) was around 85 dB in the left. The Veteran was reinstructed. PTA did not improve with the right ear being around 105 dB and the left ear being around 95 dB. No responses were seen at or above SRT at any frequency tested. At this time, the testing was terminated due to the inconsistencies seen between SRT and PTA. A VA audiological examination in February 2025 showed the following results: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 Maryland CNC R. Ear CNT CNT CNT CNT CNT 96% L. Ear CNT CNT CNT CNT CNT 88% The examiner indicated that the puretone threshold could not be tested (CNT). The examiner noted that Veteran was unwilling or unable to give accurate thresholds. He was able to hear and understand at a normal conversational level while the examiner was facing away during taking case history, however, when he was put in the sound booth, he failed to respond consistently. Volunteered SRT was 25 dBHL for the Right ear and 50 for the Left ear, however, volunteered PTs were 20-80 dBHL for the Right ear and 75-100 dBHL for the left ear. The examiner further pointed that that speech testing may be accurate in the right ear, however, there was gross inconsistencies in the left ear and Bone Conduction thresholds which were poorer than Air Conduction scores in the right ear which rendered the entire test unreliable. Responses were indicative of non-organic hearing loss. A VA audiological examination in March 2025 showed the following results: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 Maryland CNC R. Ear CNT CNT CNT CNT CNT CNT% L. Ear CNT CNT CNT CNT CNT CNT% The examiner indicated that the puretone threshold and ear and 75-100 dBHL for the left ear. The examiner further pointed that that speech testing may be accurate in the right ear, however, there was gross inconsistencies in the left ear and Bone Conduction thresholds which were poorer than Air Conduction scores in the right ear which rendered the entire test unreliable. Responses were indicative of non-organic hearing loss. A VA audiological examination in March 2025 showed the following results: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 Maryland CNC R. Ear CNT CNT CNT CNT CNT CNT% L. Ear CNT CNT CNT CNT CNT CNT% The examiner indicated that the puretone threshold and Maryland CNC could not be tested (CNT). The examiner noted that the testing results were inconsistent and invalid because the pure tone average does not agree with the speech reception thresholds bilaterally. The examiner pointed out that the Veteran was unable or unwilling to give valid responses, so thresholds cannot be determined. The examiner concluded that there are no findings, signs or symptoms to support a diagnosis of hearing loss in either ear. A private audiological testing in July 2020 showed the following results: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 Speech discrimination R. Ear 40 35 35 - 35 100 % L. Ear 20 15 15 - 20 96% A private audiological testing dated August 14, 2024 showed the following results: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 R. Ear 60 45 80 - 85 L. Ear 110 120 120 - 115 VA treatment records contained an August 2023 audiological testing results as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 R. Ear 15 10 20 30 35 L. Ear 15 15 20 25 20 VA treatment records also show that the Veteran was provided with a hearing test on August 23, 2024.The audiologist noted "right ear mild sensorineural hearing loss at 3000-4000 Hz and 8000 Hz, otherwise normal hearing... left ear: hearing is within normal limits... word-recognition: 100% in each ear at 55 db." The assessment was unilateral mild high frequency sensorineural hearing loss of the right ear. The audiologist indicated that the testing results are consistent with those from 2023; that the word recognition was good, and that testing results did not warrant the use of amplification at this time. The Veteran denied any prior use of hearing aid. The Board finds that the evidence of record persuasively favors the conclusion that it is less likely than not that the Veteran has a hearing loss disability in either ear for VA purposes. For VA purposes, hearing loss will be considered to be a disability when (1) the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or (2) the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or (3) when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Here, the August 2024 private audiological testing showed high puretone thresholds from 45 to 85 db in the right ear and 110 to 120 db in the left ear indicating moderate to severe hearing loss in the right ear and profound hearing loss in the left ear. However, when he was examined in VA clinic several days later in August 2024, the hearing in his left ear was found within normal range, and only mild high frequency sensorineural hearing loss was found in his right ear. His speech recognition was found to be good, and he did not need hearing aids. In addition, VA audiological examinations in November 2024, February 2025 and March 2025 consistently show that the Veteran was unable or unwilling to provide valid thresholds responses, in that he was able hear and understand the examiner at a normal conversational level yet providing high puretone threshold responses. As such, the Board finds that the August 2024 private audiological testing results are contradicted by other medical records and therefore invalid. Turning to the July 2020 private audiological testing, which showed a 40 dB loss at 500 Hertz and 34 dB loss at 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hertz. The testing results be good, and he did not need hearing aids. In addition, VA audiological examinations in November 2024, February 2025 and March 2025 consistently show that the Veteran was unable or unwilling to provide valid thresholds responses, in that he was able hear and understand the examiner at a normal conversational level yet providing high puretone threshold responses. As such, the Board finds that the August 2024 private audiological testing results are contradicted by other medical records and therefore invalid. Turning to the July 2020 private audiological testing, which showed a 40 dB loss at 500 Hertz and 34 dB loss at 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hertz. The testing results were inconsistent because puretone thresholds indicated that right ear hearing acuity was worse than the left ear while the speech discrimination score indicated the right ear hearing acuity was better than the left ear. The private physician also indicated "Ascending/descending not matching up consistently." Accordingly, the Board finds that the August 2024 private audiological testing results are inconsistent and therefore invalid. Conversely, the Board finds that the audiological testing conducted in the VA clinic in August 2023 reflect accurate Puretone thresholds from 500 to 4000 Hertz, because the results were later confirmed by the August 2024 VA audiological testing showing that the Veteran had mild high frequency hearing loss in the a right ear and otherwise normal hearing in other frequencies in the right ear and normal hearing in the left ear, with good word recognition in both ears. It is also consistent with the observations of multiple VA examiners who found that the Veteran had no difficulty communicating with them at the normal conversational level. Accordingly, the Board finds that the August 2023 VA audiological testing and the August 2024 VA audiological testing results are accurate and probative. It is particularly true that the audiological tests conducted in the VA clinic were for treatment purpose so that the Veteran is more likely to provide accurate response during the tests than he was given a VA examination or a private testing for purpose of seeking VA benefits. Accordingly, the evidence of record persuasively favors the conclusion that it is less likely than not that the Veteran has a hearing loss disability in either ear for VA purposes as defined by VA regulations, (auditory threshold in either ear was 40 decibels or greater, at least three of the frequencies (500, 100, 200, 300, or 4000 Hertz) were 26 decibels or greater in either ear, or speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test were less than 94 percent). In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Here, the evidence is insufficient to show that Veteran has a hearing loss disability in either ear as defined in VA regulations. Accordingly, service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. 4. Service connection for vertigo The Veteran is seeking service connection for vertigo. In his claim dated July 2024, he contends that his vertigo was caused by his service connected tinnitus. A VA examination in November 2024 diagnosed the Veteran with Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV). He reported that he began experiencing tinnitus and BPPV symptoms in 1979. The examiner opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's vertigo was due to his service connected tinnitus, and provided the following rationale: Based on reported symptomatology at C&P examination dated 02 NOV 2024 a diagnosis of BPPV was provided, no formal diagnosis was located on chart review. On literature review, John Hopkins Medicine (2022) stated "BPPV occurs when tiny calcium crystals called otoconia come loose from their normal location on the utricle, a sensory organ in the inner ear." Literature review showed an association between tinnitus and BPPV but no causation was located. Since there is lacking evidence that tinnitus causes BPPV, in my medical opinion, the claimed BPPV is less likely than not proximately due to the Veteran's tinnitus. A VA examination in January 2025 diagnosed the Veteran with Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV). He reported that he began experiencing BPPV symptoms in 1979 or 1980. The examiner opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's vertigo was due to his active service, to include as a result of toxic exposure during service. The examiner provided the following rationale: After review of the medical literature and research, there is no literature and research to support a nexus between the Veteran's Benign paroxysmal positional tinnitus causes BPPV, in my medical opinion, the claimed BPPV is less likely than not proximately due to the Veteran's tinnitus. A VA examination in January 2025 diagnosed the Veteran with Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV). He reported that he began experiencing BPPV symptoms in 1979 or 1980. The examiner opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's vertigo was due to his active service, to include as a result of toxic exposure during service. The examiner provided the following rationale: After review of the medical literature and research, there is no literature and research to support a nexus between the Veteran's Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo and potential exposure to particulate matter, chemicals, solvents, fuels, fumes, exhaust, and dust. Thus, it is less likely than not that the Veteran's Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo was caused by the synergistic, combined effect of all toxic exposure risk activities of the Veteran. The Veteran provided a buddy statement dated October 2024 from his co-service member stating that the Veteran went sick calls during service for ringing in his ears and being dizzy and out of balance. The Veteran's wife also provided a statement dated November 2024 stating that she witnessed Veteran's recurrent tinnitus episodes for more than 20 years with symptoms of dizziness, unsteadiness, staggering and losing balance. Service treatment records (STRs) are not available in the claims file. In October 2019, the AOJ determined that STRs were unavailable despites efforts to obtain them. Private treatment records in March 2023 show that the Veteran was seen for tinnitus, but review of systems showed no presence of dizziness, headaches or vertigo. He denied a history of imbalance, vertigo or dizziness. Private treatment records in July 2024 show that the Veteran saw ENT doctor for tinnitus and vertigo symptoms. VA treatment records in August 2023 show that the Veteran denied vertigo. VA records in August 2024 show that he complained of balance problems and dizziness. The physician indicated that his dizziness symptoms did not seem to be vestibular in nature. While the service member's lay statement indicating that the Veteran experienced symptoms of dizziness and imbalance during service, such statement is contradicted by medical records, and is insufficient to show that these symptoms are chronic in nature. Private records in March 2023 show that the Veteran did not have vertigo or dizziness at that time, and he denied a history of imbalance and vertigo. VA treatment records in August 2023 also show that the Veteran denied vertigo. Although private records in July 2024 and VA records in August 2024 show that the Veteran complaints of vertigo, the records were dated approximately 44 years after he separated from service. While statement from the Veteran's wife dated July 2024 stated that she witnessed his recurrent tinnitus episodes with dizziness and imbalance for more than 20 years, that does not cover the entire 44 years after he separated from service. Accordingly, the Board finds that chronicity of symptomology of vertigo since service has not been established. While the Veteran and his wife believe that his vertigo was caused by his service connected tinnitus, they lack the medical training and expertise to provide a complex medical opinion as to the etiology of vertigo. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As such, their opinions are insufficient to provide the requisite nexus in this case. For that reason, a VA medical opinion of record was obtained, but as discussed above, that opinion was against the claim. No medical opinion of record has been offered that challenges, undermines, or refutes the VA examiner's opinion. Additionally, the examiner's opinion that vertigo is less likely caused by tinnitus is consistent with VA treating doctor's opinion in August 2024 indicating that the dizziness symptom may not seem to be vestibular in nature. (Continued on next page) Accordingly, service connection for vertigo is denied. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Q. Wang, Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303. (Continued on next page) Accordingly, service connection for vertigo is denied. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Q. Wang, Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.