Citation Nr: 18142145 Decision Date: 10/16/18 Archive Date: 10/12/18 DOCKET NO. 16-15 081 DATE: October 16, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss has been manifested by no worse than Level I hearing impairment in the right ear and Level IV impairment in the left ear. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, 4.86a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served from April 1970 to October 1971. Increased Ratings Disability ratings are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings, which is based on the average impairment of earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. The Veteran’s entire history is reviewed when making disability evaluations. See generally, Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991); 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. “Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the assigned evaluation is at issue, it is the present level of disability that is of primary concern.” Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). Although the recorded history of a particular disability should be reviewed in order to make an accurate assessment under the applicable criteria, the regulations do not give past medical reports precedence over current findings. Id. For increased rating claims, staged ratings are appropriate when the factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2008). Further, “[w]here there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Ratings for hearing loss, which range from noncompensable to 100 percent, are based on an organic impairment of hearing acuity as demonstrated by the results of speech discrimination tests together with the average hearing threshold levels as measured by pure tone audiometry tests in the frequencies of 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 Hertz (Hz). The degree of disability from service-connected hearing loss is rated based on 11 auditory acuity levels with Level I, representing essentially normal acuity, through Level XI, representing profound deafness. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. An alternative rating method may be used when the pure tone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies (1,000, 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 Hertz) is 55 decibels or more, or when the pure tone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1,000 Hz and 70 decibels or more at 2,000 Hz. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. VA will determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIa based on whichever results in the higher numeral. Id. In hearing loss rating cases, an examination for VA purposes must be conducted by a state-licensed audiologist and must include a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC) and a pure tone audiometry test. Examinations are conducted without the use of hearing aids. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a). 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran is presently service connection for bilateral hearing loss with a noncompensable rating. He contends that he is entitled to a higher rating. The Board determines that a compensable rating is not warranted for the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran underwent a hearing examination in December 2015. He reported a great deal of difficulty hearing conversations from the left ear. He stated that he is unable to use the telephone on the left ear and unable to hear an individual communicating with him if seated on his left side. He also stated that he has a lot of difficulty hearing in the presence of competing background noise. On audiological evaluation, his pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 30 25 45 40 35 LEFT 30 65 65 75 59 Speech recognition scores were 100 percent in the right ear and 94 percent in the left ear. When utilizing Table VI, the Veteran exhibits Level I hearing impairment in the right ear and Level II hearing impairment in the left ear. Applying these results to Table VII, a noncompensable percent rating is for application. The Veteran underwent an additional audiological examination in October 2017. He complained of a decrease in hearing acuity especially in the left ear.   On audiological evaluation, his pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 30 20 45 40 33.75 LEFT 20 65 65 80 57.5 Speech recognition scores were 96 percent for the right ear and 80 percent for the left ear. When utilizing Table VI, the Veteran exhibits Level I hearing impairment in the right ear and Level IV hearing impairment in the left ear. Applying these results to Table VII, a noncompensable percent rating is for application. Therefore, based on the evidence of record, an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. In considering the appropriate disability ratings, the Board has also considered the Veteran's statements that his hearing loss is worse than the rating he currently receives. Here, while the Veteran is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses, he is not competent to identify a specific level of disability of his disabilities according to the appropriate diagnostic codes. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997). On the other hand, such competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the Veteran's hearing loss has been provided by the medical personnel who have examined him during the current appeal and who have rendered pertinent opinions in conjunction with the evaluations. The medical findings (as provided in the examination reports) directly address the criteria under which this disability is evaluated.   Based on the foregoing, the Board has determined that a compensable rating is not warranted, and the appeal is denied. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. Vample, Associate Counsel