Citation Nr: 18144953 Decision Date: 10/25/18 Archive Date: 10/25/18 DOCKET NO. 16-51 268 DATE: October 25, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating from March 13, 2015, and a rating in excess of 20 percent from September 28, 2016, for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. From March 13, 2015 to September 28, 2016, the hearing loss manifested by hearing acuity no worse than Level I in the right ear, and Level II in the left ear. 2. Since September 28, 2016, the hearing loss has manifested by hearing acuity no worse than Level IV in the right ear, and Level VI in the left ear. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss disability from March 13, 2015 to September 28, 2016 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.321, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100 (2017). 2. The criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent for bilateral hearing loss disability since September 28, 2016 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.321, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from May 1977 to May 1985. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from August 2015 and December 2016 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The December 2016 rating decision awarded a higher rating of 20 percent for the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. However, as this award does not constitute a grant of the full benefit sought on appeal, the matter remains on appeal before the Board. 1. Entitlement to increased rating for bilateral hearing loss Disability ratingss are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities to the veteran’s current symptomatology. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Where there is a question as to which of two disability evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that evaluation. Otherwise, the lower evaluation will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. The Board will consider whether separate ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time based on facts found, a practice known as “staged ratings,” whether it is an initial rating case or not. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 519 (2007). Hearing loss is rated under 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100. Under Diagnostic Code 6100, hearing impairment evaluations are derived by a mechanical application of the ratings schedule to the numeric designations assigned resulting from audiometric evaluations. See Lendenmen v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1992). Hearing impairment evaluations will be conducted without the use of hearing aids. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a). Under Diagnostic Code 6100, Table VI assigns a Roman numeral designation (I through XI) for hearing impairment based on the pure tone threshold average and controlled speech discrimination (Maryland CNC) testing. Table VIa assigns a Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment based only on the pure tone threshold average, and is used when speech discrimination testing is not appropriate or when indicated under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 regarding exceptional patterns of hearing impairment. The “pure tone threshold average” is the sum of the pure tone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz, divided by four. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(d). Table VII is used to determine the rating assigned by combining the Roman numeral designations for hearing impairment of each ear. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(e). The Veteran contends he is entitled to a higher rating for bilateral hearing loss due to the impact the hearing disability has had on his life and career. In a September 2015 Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran wrote his hearing loss prevented him from reenlisting into service, caused him to lose jobs, and required him to wear hearing aids. At an August 2015 VA audiological examination, the pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 30 40 80 75 LEFT 35 75 70 65 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 96 percent in each ear using the Maryland CNC speech discrimination test. The average pure tone threshold was 56.25 decibels for the right ear, and 61.25 decibels for the left ear. Applying the criteria for evaluating hearing loss to the findings of the August 2015 audiometric evaluation results in a Level I designation for the right ear, and a Level II designation for the left ear. These findings warrant a non-compensable (0 percent) rating. See Tables VI and VII, 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. On September 28, 2016, the Veteran underwent a private audiological evaluation. The pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 35 45 75 70 LEFT 40 65 70 65 Using the Maryland CNC speech discrimination test, speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 78 percent in the right ear, and 64 percent in the left ear. The average pure tone threshold was 56.25 decibels for the right ear, and 60 decibels for the left ear. Applying the criteria for evaluating hearing loss to the findings of the September 2016 audiometric evaluation results in a Level IV designation for the right ear, and a Level VI. These findings warrant a 20 percent rating, which the RO granted effective September 28, 2016. See Tables VI and VII, 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding the Veteran is entitled to a rating in excess of 20 percent at any point during the appellate period. The audiometric results from the VA and private examinations are probative and valid for rating purposes. The results include both pure tone thresholds and speech discrimination testing using the Maryland CNC test. The results of the tests reflect the severity of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss for this period. The Veteran has not submitted any evidence alleging a worsening of his disability since 2016 that would warrant an additional VA examination to assess the current severity of his hearing loss disability. Thus, the appeal for an initial compensable evaluation from March 13, 2015, and an evaluation in excess of 20 percent since September 28, 2016, for bilateral hearing loss must be denied. J. PARKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. Miller, Associate Counsel