Citation Nr: 18144540
Decision Date: 10/24/18	Archive Date: 10/24/18

DOCKET NO. 16-08 360
DATE:	October 24, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to an initial rating of 20 percent, but not in excess of 20 percent, for bilateral hearing loss is granted.
FINDING OF FACT
The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss has been manifested by no more than a hearing acuity of Level VII for the left ear and Level IV for the right ear.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for an initial disability rating of 20 percent, but not in excess of 20 percent, for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.321, 4.1-4.8, 4.10, 4.85 Diagnostic Code 6100, 4.86(a) (2017).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served in the Army National Guard from July 1998 to December 1998, and again from March 2003 to September 2003.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Veteran declined a hearing before the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(c), 20.700(a).
The Veteran appeals the initial 10 percent rating for service-connected bilateral hearing loss. He contends that this evaluation does not sufficiently compensate for the degree of functional impairment he suffers due to this disability.
Bilateral hearing loss is rated under Diagnostic Code 6100. In evaluating service-connected hearing loss, disability ratings are derived by a mechanical application of the rating schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometric evaluations are performed. Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345 (1992). Evaluations of bilateral hearing loss range from noncompensable to 100 percent based on an organic impairment of hearing acuity, as measured by controlled speech discrimination tests in conjunction with the average hearing threshold, which is measured by puretone audiometric tests in the frequencies of 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 cycles per second. The rating schedule establishes 11 auditory acuity levels designated from Level I for essentially normal hearing acuity through Level XI for profound deafness.
VA audiological evaluations are conducted using a controlled speech discrimination test together with the results of puretone audiometry tests. The vertical line in Table VI (printed in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85) represents nine categories of the percentage of discrimination based on a controlled speech discrimination test. The horizonal columns in Table VI represent nine categories of decibel loss based on the puretone audiometry test. The numeric designation of impaired hearing (Levels I through XI) is determined for each ear by intersecting the vertical row appropriate for the percentage of speech discrimination and the horizontal column appropriate to the puretone decibel loss. The percentage evaluation is found from Table VII (in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85) by intersecting the vertical column appropriate for the numeric designation for the ear having the better hearing acuity and the horizontal row appropriate for the numeric designation for the level for the ear having the poorer hearing acuity.
Additionally, an exceptional pattern of hearing impairment exists where puretone thresholds at the 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz are 55 decibels or more. Each ear is evaluated separately to determine if an exceptional pattern of hearing impairment exists. When an exceptional pattern of hearing loss does exist, the Board evaluates hearing based on puretone threshold alone if doing so would benefit the Veteran. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.86.  Aside from the foregoing objective test results, the Board must also consider the functional effects of hearing loss on the Veteran's life. See Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447 (2007).
The Veteran’s hearing was tested during a September 2015 VA examination. The Veteran’s puretone thresholds were as follows:
	1000Hz	2000Hz	3000Hz	4000Hz	Average
Left	60	80	75	75	73
Right	50	60	65	70	61

Speech recognition testing performed with the Maryland CNC word list showed speech discrimination of 82 percent for the left ear and 84 percent for the right ear.
Applying the rating schedule using the guidelines of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 yields a Roman numeral designation of III for the right ear. The puretone thresholds for the left ear show an exceptional pattern of hearing loss, yielding a Roman numeral designation of VI using the rating schedule in Table VIA (in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85). See 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(a). Together, a final rating of 10 percent would result. 
The Veteran’s hearing was tested in October 2015 at private testing for re-certification required for the Veteran’s job. The Veteran’s puretone thresholds were as follows:


	1000Hz	2000Hz	3000Hz	4000Hz	Average
Left	69	84	85	75	78
Right	55	55	65	71	62

The record does not reflect that a speech-recognition component using the Maryland CNC word list was administered during this test.
The results of the October 2015 test show an exceptional pattern of hearing loss in both ears. Applying the rating schedule using Table VIA yields a Roman numeral designation of VII for the left ear and IV for the right ear. Together, a final rating of 20 percent results. Therefore, the Veteran has met the criteria for a 20 percent rating for bilateral hearing loss. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85, 4.86.
As to whether a rating in excess of 20 percent is warranted, the Board finds that the evidence of record does not support this. The Board notes the Veteran’s negative outcome on the whispered voice test administered at the October 2015 job examination; however, whispered voice tests are not probative for VA purposes, since those tests are not frequency-specific and do not have any standardized norm. 
The Board also acknowledges the Veteran’s statements within his October 2015 election of decision officer review and February 2016 substantive appeal describing the everyday impact of his hearing loss on his ability to interact with his family, to perform duties associated with his job, and to otherwise communicate with others. The Veteran’s descriptions of the functional effects of his hearing loss, though, correspond only to difficulty hearing other people, and this form of functional loss is already accounted for within the rating schedule. Thus, the Veteran’s audiometric results adequately rate his disability. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017); see also Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453 (2009).
Even viewing the evidence with the benefit of the doubt accorded to the Veteran, a preponderance of the evidence weighs against granting a rating in excess of 20 percent. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 54 (1990); 38 U.S.C. § 5107, 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

 
K. PARAKKAL
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	M. Davis, Associate Counsel