Citation Nr: 18147152 Decision Date: 11/02/18 Archive Date: 11/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-17 277 DATE: November 2, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an increased rating for hearing loss, currently rated at 0 percent disabling, is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to total disability rating based upon individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT For the entire appeal period, there was no worse than Level I hearing in each ear. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for increased rating for hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.321, 4.1-4.10, 4.85 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from January 1988 to November 1996. Increased rating for hearing loss is denied. Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, found in 38 C.F.R., Part 4. The Rating Schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to service. The ratings are intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. When 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 for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. The Veteran’s service-connected bilateral hearing loss is currently assigned a noncompensable rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. Ratings of hearing loss range from noncompensable to 100 percent based on organic impairment of hearing acuity as measured by the results of speech discrimination tests combined with the average hearing threshold levels as measured by pure tone audiometry tests in the frequencies 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 cycles per second. To rate the degree of disability for service-connected hearing loss, the Rating Schedule has established eleven auditory acuity levels, designated from Level I, for essentially normal acuity, through Level XI, for profound deafness. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(h), Table VI. To establish entitlement to a compensable rating for hearing loss, it must be shown that certain minimum levels of the combination of the percentage of speech discrimination loss and average pure tone decibel loss are met. The assignment of disability ratings for hearing impairment is derived by a mechanical application of the Rating Schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometric evaluations are rendered. Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1992). The criteria for rating hearing impairment uses controlled speech discrimination tests (Maryland CNC) together with the results of pure tone audiometry tests. These results are then charted on Table VI, Table VIa in exceptional cases as described in 38 C.F.R. § 4.86, and Table VII, as set out in the Rating Schedule. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. An exceptional pattern of hearing loss occurs when the pure tone threshold at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz is 55 decibels or more, or when the pure tone threshold is 30 decibels or more at 1000 Hertz and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. The Veteran is currently rated at 0 percent for hearing loss. The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss warrants a compensable disability rating. A VA examination for hearing loss was conducted in October 2014. This is also the most recent hearing evaluation in the file. The pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows. Hertz Right Ear Threshold Left Ear Threshold 1000 10 10 2000 10 15 3000 15 20 4000 30 75 Average 16 30 Word recognition testing again showed speech recognition ability of 96 percent bilaterally. These audiometry results equate to Level I hearing of each ear using Table VI. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. Applying the percentage ratings for hearing impairment found in Table VII, such findings result in a noncompensable disability rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. The Board further finds that the evidence of record reflects no certification of language difficulties, inconsistent speech audiometry scores, or pure tone threshold findings of 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz, or pure tone thresholds of 55 decibels or more from 1000 to 4000 Hertz as to warrant consideration as an exceptional pattern of hearing impairment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. To the extent that the Veteran contends that his hearing loss is more severe than currently evaluated, the Board observes that the schedular criteria would contemplate most symptoms as indicated by the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. During his October 2014 VA examination, the Veteran denied that his hearing loss impacted the ordinary conditions of his daily life. The Board has also considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal and the claim for a compensable disability rating for hearing loss must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 1507; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to TDIU is remanded. The record indicates that Social Security Administration (SSA) records exist which have not been associated with this file. The record contains a power-of-attorney document, signed in July 2013, in which the Veteran is being represented in applying for SSI benefits. There is also a letter from August 2016 indicating that SSI was denied. Upon review of the record, it does not appear that any attempts were made to obtain SSA records. These records, which are not currently associated with the claims file, may be relevant to the TDIU claim. Thus, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should obtain all medical and legal documents pertaining to the SSA claim. See Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain records from the Social Security Administration concerning the Veteran’s claim for SSI benefits. H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals J. Jack, Law Clerk Department of Veterans Affairs