Hearing Aids for Veterans with Military Hearing Loss

Hearing aids can make a major difference to somebody living with military hearing loss. They can make speech clearer, improve awareness of everyday sounds, reduce listening effort and make conversations easier. For some people they can also make tinnitus less noticeable.

But hearing aids do not restore normal hearing. And the most expensive hearing aid is not automatically the best hearing aid for a particular veteran.

A good result depends on much more than the device itself. It can depend on:

• the type and pattern of hearing loss;
• whether one or both ears need amplification;
• the person's work and everyday listening needs;
• speech-in-noise difficulty;
• tinnitus;
• correct programming;
• fitting;
• follow-up;
• adjustment;
• whether the person actually wears the aids.

Veterans in the UK can obtain hearing aids through the NHS. Private hearing aids are another option. In Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 941 (KB) the High Court also considered when the future cost of private hearing aids can form part of damages in a civil military hearing-loss claim.

The Court did not create an automatic entitlement to premium private devices. It held that private high-performance hearing aids may be recoverable depending on the evidence in the individual case. This guide explains the healthcare and claims positions separately.

The short version

• Hearing aids make sound louder and clearer but do not restore normal hearing.
• NICE says hearing aids should be offered where hearing loss affects the person's ability to communicate and hear.
• Where both ears have aidable hearing loss, NICE recommends offering two hearing aids.
• Two aids can improve speech understanding in background noise, sound localisation and sound quality.
• The audiogram is important, but there is no single decibel threshold that decides whether somebody will benefit from hearing aids.
• Real-life hearing difficulty matters.
• A properly fitted hearing aid may still not solve every difficulty, especially speech in background noise.
• Hearing aids require programming, acclimatisation, fine-tuning, maintenance and follow-up.
• NHS hearing aids are available free as a long-term loan, with free batteries, repairs, follow-up and aftercare.
• Private providers may offer a wider choice of devices, styles and service packages.
• "Private" does not automatically mean "clinically better".
• The old government Veterans' Hearing Fund is closed and is not accepting new applications.
• Veterans with service-related health problems should tell their GP they are a military veteran.
• In Great Britain, veterans may be considered for priority NHS treatment for service-related conditions, always subject to clinical need.
• Veterans in England with continuing service-related physical health problems can ask their GP whether Op RESTORE is appropriate.
• Abbott held that the cost of private hearing aids can, in principle, be recovered in a civil damages claim.
• But the need, benefit, cost and actual intention to buy the aids must be considered individually.
• Mr Lambie received £27,350 for future hearing aids and associated equipment. Mr Craggs received nothing for hearing aids — though his tinnitus claim did succeed separately.
• Those opposite outcomes are deliberate examples of why there is no automatic "hearing-aid award".
• A claimant cannot simply choose the most expensive device and assume the MOD must pay for it.

What does a hearing aid actually do?

A hearing aid is an electronic device that receives sound, processes it and delivers amplified sound to the ear.

Modern digital hearing aids can do much more than simply make everything louder. Depending on the device and fitting, features may include directional microphones, noise-reduction processing, different listening programmes, wireless connectivity, Bluetooth, rechargeable batteries, remote microphones and app controls.

But the purpose remains the same: to improve useful hearing and communication.

Will hearing aids restore my hearing to normal?

No. This is one of the most important expectations to get right.

They can make sounds louder, clearer and easier to understand. But the damaged auditory system remains damaged.

Someone with sensorineural hearing loss may still experience difficulty in busy restaurants, in group conversations, in vehicles, where several people speak at once, with speech coming from a distance, or where there is competing background noise.

Abbott makes the same point — the ENT experts agreed that hearing aids do not restore hearing to normal levels, and that difficulties with speech perception, particularly in background noise, contribute to relatively low usage of hearing aids. They also agreed that hearing aids can nevertheless be effective in improving communication and listening abilities.

Who should be offered hearing aids?

The decision is therefore not based solely on one number on the audiogram.

There is no universal clinical threshold of "X dB means hearing aids; X minus one means no hearing aids". Abbott considered this directly: the experts agreed, and the Court accepted, that there is no fixed level of measured hearing loss that must be reached before hearing aids can be justified.

Two people can have very similar audiograms but experience very different difficulties in everyday life. The assessment should consider the audiogram and the person's actual communication needs.

Why does real-world hearing matter?

Pure-tone audiometry measures whether somebody can detect simple tones in controlled conditions. Daily life is not a quiet audiology booth.

A veteran may struggle with colleagues speaking in an office, grandchildren talking at once, restaurants, television, telephone calls, meetings, traffic or group conversations.

NICE specifically says the audiological assessment should discuss hearing deficits "that are not obvious from the audiogram", such as listening in noisy environments.

Should I have one hearing aid or two?

That does not mean every person needs two. One ear may not have aidable hearing, or there may be another medical reason requiring a different approach. The audiologist should assess the individual.

Can hearing aids help with tinnitus?

They can help some people who have tinnitus and hearing loss.

By increasing access to external sound, hearing aids can sometimes reduce the contrast between tinnitus and the surrounding environment, which can make tinnitus less noticeable.

But they are not a universal tinnitus treatment. Somebody who principally experiences tinnitus but has little or no hearing difficulty may require a different tinnitus-management approach — our guide to tinnitus and military service covers that. Abbott illustrates this distinction very clearly, as the Craggs outcome below shows.

What happened with hearing aids in Abbott?

Hearing aids were one of the generic issues considered in Abbott. The Court heard evidence from ENT experts, hearing-aid dispensers and audiology specialists.

The debate was not simply NHS versus private. It involved when aids are clinically justified, how benefit should be assessed, private device features, fitting and follow-up, replacement cycles, whether the claimant would actually purchase private aids, and whether additional equipment was justified.

The Claimants asked the Court to lay down a general rule.

The Court did not adopt it.

The crucial words are depending on the evidence. The Court refused to impose a universal rule, and refused to impose a universal decibel threshold.

Did Abbott say every claimant gets premium private hearing aids?

No. That would be a serious misreading of the judgment.

So the Court expressly held that hearing-aid benefit is individual, the appropriate cost is individual, ancillary equipment requires individual justification, and the age at which somebody would otherwise have required hearing aids cannot be fixed generically.

What happened to Mr Lambie?

Mr Christopher Lambie's hearing-loss case was successful. He had substantial bilateral NIHL and had been using hearing aids since his early thirties, with experience of MOD, NHS and private devices, and the evidence showed significant functional hearing difficulties.

The parties were actually very close on the appropriate future hearing-aid cost — the claimant claimed £27,350 and the MOD contended for £26,905.26, a difference of £444 relating principally to whether a second Roger microphone would be required. The MOD accepted liability for the cost of top-of-the-range hearing aids, at 2025 prices of £4,300 per aid.

Mr Justice Garnham awarded £27,350, which then fell to be reduced by 10% to reflect the application of the Matrix.

What happened to Mr Craggs?

Mr Jack Craggs produced almost the opposite outcome.

He had trialled private hearing aids during the litigation and reported some benefits. But the Court ultimately found that his present hearing loss had not been proved to result from military NIHL. His tinnitus was accepted as service-related, so the Court then considered whether hearing aids should nevertheless be awarded for tinnitus management.

The answer was no. The Court accepted expert evidence that hearing aids were not currently required for his tinnitus, that tinnitus counselling would be more beneficial, that his hearing loss was mild, and that his work meant he could not wear the proposed devices in that role.

There was also a separate legal problem: the judge was not satisfied that Mr Craggs was actually likely to buy private hearing aids. He had experienced symptoms for many years but had never sought hearing aids privately or through the NHS before the trial.

The Court therefore made no award for hearing aids.

What is the Woodrup principle?

Abbott relied on the Court of Appeal authority Woodrup v Nicol [1993] PIQR Q104. The practical principle is that a claimant seeking damages for private medical treatment or equipment must establish that they are genuinely likely to incur that private expenditure.

A damages award is compensation for a real future loss. It is not a theoretical shopping budget.

But isn't NHS treatment supposed to reduce the damages?

There is another important legal rule. Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 means that when deciding whether medical expenditure is reasonable, the court disregards the possibility that the claimant could avoid the expense by using NHS facilities.

So a defendant cannot simply say "the NHS exists, therefore private treatment can never be recovered". Abbott recognised this.

But that does not mean private expenditure is automatically recoverable. The claimant still needs to establish need, benefit, reasonable cost and intention to use private provision.

NHS hearing aids versus private hearing aids

There is no responsible universal answer to "which is better?". The correct question is "which hearing solution meets this person's needs?"

Modern NHS provision commonly includes behind-the-ear devices and, in some services, receiver-in-the-ear devices.

Private providers may offer a wider range of manufacturers, additional device styles, premium technology tiers, connectivity options, service packages and in some circumstances shorter waits. But those things do not automatically produce a clinically meaningful advantage for every person.

Abbott took the same approach. The Court heard argument that advanced private devices may offer advantages in speech processing, directional microphones, noise reduction and connectivity, while the MOD argued private costs should not automatically be awarded unless the evidence showed a meaningful individual advantage over NHS provision. The Court chose the case-by-case approach. It did not decide "private good, NHS bad" — it decided prove what the individual reasonably needs.

What features should I ask an audiologist about?

Rather than asking "what is your most expensive hearing aid?", ask questions based on your actual listening difficulties.

Background noise. Do directional microphones or noise-reduction settings help in the environments where you struggle?

Telephone use. Can calls stream directly to the device?

Television. Can the aids connect directly or through another assistive device?

Work. Are there meetings, secure workplaces, protective equipment or communication systems that affect what you can use?

Dexterity. Are batteries or small controls difficult to handle? Would rechargeable aids be easier?

Tinnitus. Does amplification alter tinnitus awareness?

Remote microphones. Would a remote microphone help when the person speaking is some distance away or there is substantial background noise?

The purpose is to solve communication problems, not collect features.

What is a Roger microphone?

Roger is a type of remote microphone technology. A microphone is placed near or worn by the person speaking, and their voice is transmitted to the listener's hearing system. This can be useful where distance or background noise makes conventional hearing aids less effective.

Mr Lambie's Abbott award included provision concerning Roger microphone equipment. That does not mean every military NIHL claimant needs one — Abbott expressly said ancillary equipment requires case-specific justification.

Why are fitting and follow-up so important?

A hearing aid is not simply purchased and switched on. It needs to be programmed to the person's hearing. Poor fitting can produce excessive loudness, inadequate amplification, feedback, uncomfortable sound, poor speech clarity or excessive background noise. The prescription therefore matters as much as the hardware.

At follow-up, the service should ask about concerns, address difficulties with inserting, removing or maintaining the aids, provide information on support services, explain how to contact audiology in future for aftercare, and check that the devices meet the person's needs — including comfort, sound quality, volume and microphone settings.

A device that initially feels disappointing may sometimes need proper adjustment rather than immediate abandonment.

How long does it take to get used to hearing aids?

That is normal. The brain is suddenly receiving sounds that may have been reduced for years, and some environmental sounds can initially seem intrusive, unnatural or too noticeable.

That does not mean somebody should tolerate a badly fitted device indefinitely. Problems should be discussed with the audiologist.

The Veterans' Hearing Fund is closed

There used to be a dedicated government-funded Veterans' Hearing Fund, established in 2015, which supported equipment and therapies for veterans whose hearing had been affected by service.

Note that the separate Veterans' Mobility Fund is a different scheme and was still running when the MOD answered that question. Do not assume that because one has closed, the other has.

There are charities and veterans' organisations offering varying forms of support, but their eligibility, funding, available devices and waiting lists change. This site links only to organisations whose current offer has been checked, rather than maintaining a permanent list that silently becomes outdated. The NHS remains the core healthcare route.

Veteran healthcare routes

Ordinary NHS audiology remains an important route for veterans. Tell your GP that you served in the Armed Forces and ask for military veteran to be recorded in your patient record.

Under the Armed Forces Covenant, veterans in Great Britain may be considered for priority NHS treatment for conditions relating to service. That priority is always subject to clinical need — it does not mean jumping ahead of somebody who needs care more urgently.

Tell the GP about your military service, relevant noise exposure, any WPS or AFCS decision, and military medical records where available. Our guide to military medical records and hearing tests explains how to obtain them. The treating clinician determines the appropriate healthcare pathway.

In England, Op RESTORE: The Veterans Physical Health and Wellbeing Service supports veterans and service leavers with continuing physical health conditions related to service, by GP referral. It is intended to help create joined-up care and connect veterans with clinicians who understand military service. It is not a private hearing-aid fund — but where hearing problems form part of a continuing service-related physical-health problem, it may be worth asking the GP whether Op RESTORE is an appropriate route.

How much do hearing aids cost?

NHS hearing aids are free as a long-term loan, with batteries, repairs, follow-up and aftercare normally provided without charge. There may be charges where an aid is lost or damaged and requires replacement.

Retail pricing changes and differs between providers. A price on a website should not be confused with what a court might award in a civil case.

Abbott dealt with expert evidence about a specific class of high-performance devices, putting their current cost "in the region £4,200 – £5,000, including consultation, and consumables such as domes or wax guards" — and the MOD worked from 2025 prices of £4,300 per aid for Mr Lambie. That is litigation evidence about one class of device, not a national retail tariff.

The hearing-aid experts in Abbott also used a five-year replacement cycle when costing future private devices, which the Court considered reasonable on the evidence before it. That does not create a legal rule that every hearing aid lasts exactly five years — actual replacement can depend on wear, technology, battery condition, changes in hearing, repairability and clinical need.

Can future hearing aids be included in compensation?

Potentially. If the claimant proves that military NIHL caused a need for hearing aids earlier or to a greater extent than would otherwise have been the case, reasonable future costs may form part of damages.

The evidence may need to establish current need, future need, type of device, benefit, replacement assumptions, likely use and cost. Abbott confirms this must be done individually.

That includes accelerated need. A person may eventually have needed hearing aids because of ordinary age-associated hearing loss even without military NIHL, and military noise may cause them to require aids years earlier. The compensable loss may therefore concern that accelerated period, rather than assuming the defendant must pay every hearing-aid cost for the rest of the claimant's life regardless of age. Abbott refused to set one universal age at which everybody would otherwise have required hearing aids.

And a recommendation is evidence, not an invoice. The Court still considers medical need, demonstrated benefit, reasonable cost, alternatives, intention to purchase and case-specific circumstances. An expert report should explain why the proposed technology is appropriate.

Does Bluetooth or rechargeability make a hearing aid medically necessary?

Not by itself.

For one person Bluetooth may materially improve telephone communication, video meetings and work. For another it may be a convenience with little clinical importance. The same applies to rechargeable batteries, remote controls, smartphone apps and accessories. Features need to connect to actual needs.

Rechargeable aids may be convenient, but suitability depends on lifestyle, charging access, work environment, dexterity and device restrictions. In Craggs, for example, the claimant worked in an environment where lithium-battery restrictions affected whether he could use the trialled hearing aids at work. That type of practical issue matters.

Can hearing aids affect my job?

Usually the aim is to improve communication and function. But particular workplaces may create practical issues, including:

• hearing-protection requirements;
• intrinsically safe equipment rules;
• headsets;
• secure-site restrictions;
• helmets or protective equipment;
• communication systems.

A working-age veteran should tell the audiologist what their job actually involves.

For someone whose hearing affects employment, the government Access to Work programme can potentially help with workplace support — NICE identifies it as one route for assistive listening devices. The available support depends on individual circumstances, and it is separate from NHS treatment, civil damages, AFCS and WPS.

What if hearing aids do not help enough?

There may be other options depending on the type and severity of hearing loss, including:

• assistive listening devices;
• remote microphones;
• personal loops;
• telephone systems;
• TV devices;
• visual or vibrating alarms;
• communication strategies.

For some forms of severe hearing loss, implantable devices may also be considered following specialist assessment.

Assistive listening devices help in specific situations rather than simply amplifying all surrounding sound. For somebody whose greatest problem is meetings or television, an appropriate additional device may sometimes solve the problem better than buying a more expensive hearing aid.

Practical points for veterans considering a claim

If you bought hearing aids before making a claim, keep invoices, reports, prescriptions, audiograms, fitting information, evidence of repairs and replacement records. But a previous private purchase does not automatically establish that the entire cost is legally recoverable from the MOD — a civil claim still requires causation, reasonableness and evidence of loss.

If you already have NHS hearing aids, that does not automatically prevent a private hearing-aid claim. But the existing NHS experience may be highly relevant: are the NHS aids helping? What difficulty remains? Have they been appropriately adjusted? What would the proposed private aids provide that the existing aids do not, and has that advantage actually been trialled?

A hearing-aid trial can be extremely useful. Abbott heard expert evidence that benefit cannot reliably be predicted from the audiogram alone. A trial lets the person and audiologist assess speech, background noise, comfort, tinnitus, work, telephone use, television and real-world use — and in litigation, a well-documented trial may provide much stronger evidence than a device recommended from paper records. There is no universal trial period, though in Craggs one expert regarded a ten-day trial as short and said he would ordinarily expect a longer acclimatisation period. The useful point is that benefit should be assessed after a meaningful opportunity to adapt to properly fitted devices.

If you do not currently use hearing aids, that does not mean you never will. But a claimant seeking substantial future private-aid costs should expect the question: why would you buy these in future if you have never sought hearing aids before? The answer may be perfectly good — the hearing loss may recently have worsened — but the evidential issue needs addressing.

How do the compensation schemes treat hearing aids?

AFCS is not assessed in the same way as a civil damages claim — it uses statutory tariff rules, so a civil schedule of future hearing-aid costs should not be confused with an AFCS award.

The War Pension Scheme is also a statutory compensation system rather than an itemised civil damages calculation. Separately, veterans receiving a War Pension for accepted service-related conditions may have additional healthcare entitlements, and current government guidance says war pensioners in Great Britain should receive priority NHS treatment for accepted service-related conditions, subject to clinical need.

Our guide to civil claim vs AFCS vs War Pension explains the different systems.

If hearing aids are clinically appropriate, there is usually no sensible healthcare reason to remain unnecessarily impaired merely because litigation is ongoing. Discuss treatment with an audiologist and your solicitor where a claim is active, and keep records of assessment, fitting, benefit, costs, problems and adjustments — real-world experience can provide useful evidence.

What should I do if I think I need hearing aids?

A sensible healthcare sequence is:

1. Get your hearing assessed.
2. Explain your real-world communication difficulties.
3. Tell the clinician you are a veteran if the hearing problem may be service-related.
4. Discuss NHS hearing-aid options.
5. Ask about two aids if both ears have aidable hearing loss.
6. Discuss any particular work or tinnitus needs.
7. Attend follow-up and allow proper adjustment.
8. Consider private provision only after understanding what additional benefit you actually need.

If you are also considering a civil claim, keep the records.

Frequently asked questions