Citation Nr: 18149250 Decision Date: 11/09/18 Archive Date: 11/08/18 DOCKET NO. 15-31 508A DATE: November 9, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The most probative evidence indicates that the Veteran’s hearing loss was manifested by no worse than Level IV hearing loss in the right ear and Level II hearing loss in the left ear. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an initial compensable rating for service-connected bilateral hearing loss have not been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1975 to October 1976. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an October 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), and are intended to represent the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Disabilities must be reviewed in relation to their history. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Other applicable, general policy considerations are: interpreting reports of examination in light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability, 38 C.F.R. § 4.2; resolving any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability in favor of the claimant, 38 C.F.R. § 4.3; where there is a question as to which of two evaluations apply, assigning the higher of the two where the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for the next higher rating, 38 C.F.R. § 4.7; and, evaluating functional impairment on the basis of lack of usefulness and the effects of the disability upon the person’s ordinary activity, 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). A claimant may experience multiple distinct degrees of disability that might result in different levels of compensation from the time the increased rating claim was filed until a final decision is made. Thus, separate ratings can be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts found - a practice known as “staged” ratings. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). Evaluations of defective hearing range from noncompensable to 100 percent based on organic impairment of hearing acuity as measured by the results of a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC) together with the average hearing threshold level measured by puretone audiometry tests in the frequencies of 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz (“specified frequencies”). To evaluate the degree of disability from service-connected defective hearing, the rating schedule establishes 11 auditory hearing acuity levels designated from Level I, for essentially normal hearing acuity, through Level XI, for profound deafness. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Tables VI and VII, Diagnostic Code 6100. Disability ratings for hearing loss are derived from a mechanical application of the rating schedule to the numeric designations resulting from audiometric testing. See Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345 (1992). Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.86, when the puretone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies is 55 decibels or more, the rating specialist will determine the Level designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIA, whichever results in the higher numeral. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(a). Further, when the puretone threshold is 30 decibels at 1000 Hertz and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz, the rating specialist will determine the Level designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIA, whichever results in the higher numeral. That numeral will then be elevated to the next higher Level. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(b). Each ear is considered separately. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. The use of Table VIA is also appropriate when an examiner certifies that use of a speech discrimination test is not appropriate. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. After review of the evidence, the Board finds that an increased rating is not warranted. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in August 2014. Testing showed puretone thresholds of 45, 40, 55, and 75 decibels in the right ear, and 30, 25, 45, and 40 decibels in the left ear, resulting in average puretone thresholds, when rounded to the nearest whole number, of 54 decibels in the right ear and 35 decibels in the left ear. Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 80 percent in the right ear and 88 percent in the left ear. Applying these results to Table VI in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 yields a finding of Level IV hearing loss in the right ear and Level II in the left ear. As no exceptional pattern of hearing is demonstrated, consideration under Table VIA is not warranted. Where hearing loss is at Level IV in the poorer ear and Level II in the better ear, a noncompensable percent rating is warranted under Table VII. A chart showing hearing test findings in June 2013 is also of record but cannot be used to determine the disability rating as there is no indication a Maryland CNC test was administered along with the puretone testing. Of note, the reported puretone findings are similar to the findings at the later VA examination. Most findings were the same or better, and the couple findings that were worse were within 5 decibels of the VA examination findings. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has trouble hearing and sympathizes with his complaints regarding the functional impact of his hearing loss on his daily life, including difficulty understanding conversations. The Board notes, however, that the assignment of disability ratings for hearing impairment is derived from a mechanical formula based on levels of puretone threshold average and speech discrimination. Thus, the medical evidence of record is more probative than lay contentions as to the extent of the Veteran’s hearing loss. The Board finds the VA examination, in particular, highly probative, and notes that it was conducted in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a). Moreover, the VA examiner addressed the functional effects of the Veteran’s hearing loss on his daily activities. Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447, 455-56 (2007). Accordingly, entitlement to an initial compensable rating for service-connected bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. Nathan Kroes Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Megan Shuster, Law Clerk