Citation Nr: 18144650 Decision Date: 10/25/18 Archive Date: 10/24/18 DOCKET NO. 16-42 116 DATE: October 25, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT At worst the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was manifested by hearing impairment corresponding to auditory acuity of no more than level I in the right ear and level I in the left ear. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss has not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1-4.7, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the Navy from December 1980 to November 1986. This appeal comes before the Boards of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an November 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Decatur, Georgia. 1. Initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran asserts that his service connected hearing disability is more severe than the currently assigned noncompensable rating. Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings which is based, as far as can practically be determined, on the average impairment of earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Each service-connected disability is rated based on specific criteria identified by Diagnostic Codes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.27. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall apply, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. All reasonable doubt as to the degree of the disability will be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Hearing loss ranges from zero to 100 percent. This is based on organic impairment of hearing acuity measured by combining controlled speech discrimination tests results together with the average hearing- threshold level measured by pure tone audiometric tests in the frequencies of 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz. The rating schedule establishes eleven auditory acuity levels ranging from numeric level I for essentially normal acuity, through numeric level XI for profound deafness to evaluate the degree of disability from service-connected hearing loss. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Tables VI and VII, Diagnostic Code 6100. The ratings for disability compensation for hearing loss are determined by a mechanical, meaning nondiscretionary, application of the criteria in Table VI and Table VII. Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1992). Table VI in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 is used to determine the numeric designation of hearing impairment based on the pure tone threshold average from the audiometry test and the results of the speech discrimination test. The vertical lines in Table VI represent nine categories of the percentage of discrimination based on the controlled speech discrimination test. The horizontal columns in Table VI represent nine categories of decibel loss based on the pure tone audiometry test. See id. The numeric designation of impaired hearing for each ear (Levels I through XI) is determined by intersecting the vertical row, the percentage of discrimination, and the horizontal column, the pure tone decibel loss. The rating is determined in Table VII in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 by intersecting the vertical column, the numeric designation for the ear having the better hearing acuity (as determined by Table VI), and the horizontal row, the numeric designation level for the ear having the poorer hearing acuity (as determined by Table VI). The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.86, addresses exceptional patterns of hearing impairment and allows for use of Table VIA, which evaluates hearing impairment based only on pure tone averages, if the veterans pure tone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz) is 55 decibels or more, or the pure tone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz. On the contract audiological evaluation in November 2014, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 25 25 50 60 60 LEFT 30 25 45 60 65 The average pure tone threshold was 48.75 decibels in the right ear and 48.75 decibels in the left ear. Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 96 percent in the right ear and 96 percent in the left ear. Utilizing 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VI, the results correspond to a hearing level of I in the right ear and I in the left ear. Applying these hearing levels to 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VII, results in a noncompensable rating. The Board also notes no exceptional patterns of hearing impairment. The Veteran expressed disbelief, asserting in the Notice of Disagreement that his ability to discriminate words in the real world is much worse than the controlled environment of the actual test. He requested another speech discrimination test performed by a different audiologist. The RO scheduled a separate audiological evaluation in June 2016, where pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 25 50 60 65 LEFT 25 25 45 55 60 The average pure tone threshold was 50 decibels in the right ear and 46 decibels in the left ear. Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 94 percent in the right ear and 96 percent in the left ear. Again, utilizing 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VI, the results correspond to a hearing level of I in the right ear and I in the left ear. Applying these hearing levels to 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VII, the Board finds that an initial compensable rating is not warranted. The Board notes that there are no other relevant medical records after June 2016 to consider whether an initial compensable disability rating is warranted. The Board also finds that there are no exceptional patterns of hearing impairment. Therefore, an initial compensable rating is denied. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s assertions that his hearing is worse than currently rated, that he should be entitled to a compensable disability rating, and that it affects his daily life and job functions, specifically as he reported in the Notice of Disagreement that he cannot understand what people are saying, and in the Form 9 that he has trouble hearing in a moderately noisy room; when his name is called; and trouble hearing traffic. See Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447, 455 (2007). The Veteran is competent to report on factual matters and observable symptoms of which he had firsthand knowledge, and the Board finds that the Veteran is credible. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005). That noted, the Board finds that the assigned noncompensable rating fully contemplates the functional effects contemplated by the Veteran, as the subjective complaints of the Veteran are consistent with his testing findings and the hearing loss those findings reflect. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017) The Board finds the results of the November 2016 VA audiological examination adequately represent the severity of the Veteran’s hearing loss throughout the pendency of this claim. As such, the preponderance of the evidence is against an entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss; therefore, the Veteran’s appeal is denied. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Banks, Associate Counsel