Citation Nr: 18150762 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 16-46 070 DATE: November 15, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss, to include substitution is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND [The Veteran served on active duty from September 1977 to October 1978. He died in August 2017. His widow has been substituted as the claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 5121A (2012); Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 7 (2010). This matter is on appeal from an August 2014 rating decision. The Boards notes that in the August 2014 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and assigned an initial noncompensable (zero percent) disability rating, effective November 7, 2013. In June 2015, the Veteran filed a “claim” for an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss which was denied in a September 2015 rating decision. However, in interpreting the Veteran’s claim in the most beneficial terms to the Veteran, the Board has interpreted the “claim” as a notice of disagreement with the August 2014 rating decision and has redefined the issue on appeal as entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. Bilateral Hearing Loss Rating The appellant contends that the Veteran’s service-connected bilateral hearing loss was more severe than his current rating and warrants an initial compensable rating. The record includes May 2013 and July 2014 private audiology reports the results of which were provided in graphic representations without interpretation as to the exact puretone thresholds found at the appropriate frequencies. See Kelly v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 471 (1995) (the Board should not discount audiograms just because they are in graphical form and can remand uninterpreted audiograms for interpretation). In addition, it is unclear whether the speech discrimination testing was conducted using the Maryland CNC test. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 (a) (the controlled speech discrimination test administered by a state-licensed audiologist must be the Maryland CNC Test). Finally, it is unclear whether puretone thresholds readings were conducted at 3,000 Hertz. Without puretone thresholds readings at 3000 Hertz, this private audiology report would not be adequate or suitable for rating hearing loss for VA purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 (d) (the puretone threshold average is the sum of the puretone thresholds at 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 Hertz, divided by 4). The Board notes that in a January 2014 remand related to a claim for an increased rating for bilateral chronic otitis media, the Board requested clarification of the May 2013 evaluation. However, it does not appear that clarification was obtained. Nonetheless, further clarification from both private audiologists of these discrepancies should be undertaken on remand regarding the claim for an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. See Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 259, 263-64 (2011). The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Contact the Appellant and request that she either submit, or provide VA sufficient information and authorization to obtain clarification of the May 2013 and July 2014 audiology evaluations from Valley Ear, Nose and Throat Specialists and Audiology Consulting Services, respectively. 2. Then, contact the audiologists who conducted the May 2013 and July 2014 private audiograms for purposes of clarification of the graphical audiogram. The audiologist should be asked to: (i) provide the exact numbers in decibels for the puretone thresholds for each ear at the appropriate frequencies (500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz); (ii) clarify whether speech discrimination testing was conducted using the Maryland CNC test; and (iii) clarify whether puretone thresholds readings were conducted at the 3,000 Hertz frequency. All attempts to seek clarification, and any response received, must be documented in the claims file. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Adams, Counsel