Citation Nr: 18153108 Decision Date: 11/28/18 Archive Date: 11/27/18 DOCKET NO. 17-28 757A DATE: November 28, 2018 ORDER An initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT At worst, the Veteran has level IV hearing loss in the left ear and level II hearing loss in the right ear. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1-4.14, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from August 1966 to June 1968. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Denver, Colorado. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings, which is in turn based on the average impairment of earning capacity caused by a given disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the evaluations to be assigned to the various disabilities. If 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 required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Hearing loss is evaluated under Diagnostic Code 6100. The condition is normally rated on the basis of controlled speech discrimination tests (Maryland CNC), together with the results of puretone audiometry tests. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. Ordinarily, the results of these tests are charted on Table VI, as set out in the Rating Schedule, to determine the appropriate Roman numeral designation (I through XI) to be assigned for the hearing impairment in each ear. These numeric designations are then charted on Table VII to determine the rating to be assigned. Id. See, e.g., Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1992) (indicating that evaluations of hearing loss are determined by a mechanical application of the rating schedule). However, not all patterns of hearing loss are rated in this manner. For example, if the puretone threshold at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz is 55 decibels or more, the Roman numeral designation for that ear is taken from either Table VI or VIa, whichever results in the higher numeral. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(a). See also 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85(c) and 4.86(b) (indicating that alternative methodologies also apply when the examiner certifies that use of the speech discrimination test is not appropriate or when the puretone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz). In the present case, the record reflects that the Veteran underwent a VA audiology evaluation in December 2015. Audiometric testing at that time produced the following results: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 35 45 50 65 48.75 LEFT 35 55 60 70 55 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 88 percent in the right ear and of 78 in the left ear. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 and Table VI, these results correspond to level II acuity for the right ear and level IV acuity for the left ear; which, in turn, warrants a zero percent (noncompensable) rating under Table VII. On authorized audiological evaluation in July 2018, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 30 40 50 60 45 LEFT 35 50 55 65 51 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 96 percent in the right ear and of 94 in the left ear. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 and Table VI, these results correspond to level I acuity in both ears; which, in turn, warrants a zero percent (noncompensable) rating under Table VII. In light of the foregoing, it is the Board’s conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. As set forth above, the only available audiometric reports demonstrate entitlement to nothing more than a noncompensable rating. In arriving at this conclusion, the Board has specifically considered whether the Veteran is entitled to a “staged rating.” See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 125-26 (1999). It is the Board's conclusion, however, that none of the evidence demonstrates that his hearing disability has ever been more than zero percent disabling since the time that he filed the underlying claim for service connection. The preponderance of the evidence is against the assignment of a higher rating under the Schedule, and a “staged rating” is not warranted. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. Miller, Associate Counsel