Citation Nr: 18153521 Decision Date: 11/28/18 Archive Date: 11/27/18 DOCKET NO. 15-19 003 DATE: November 28, 2018 ORDER An increased (compensable) rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT The Veteran’s right ear hearing loss has been manifested by no more than Level I hearing impairment, and his left ear hearing loss has been manifested by no more than Level II hearing impairment. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran honorably served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from October 1964 to August 1968. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Phoenix, Arizona. Increased 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 April 2012. Audiometric testing at that time produced the following results: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 30 75 80 LEFT 25 35 75 85 The puretone threshold average was 51 in the right ear and 55 in the left ear. Using the Maryland CNC speech recognition test, speech audiometry results revealed a speech recognition ability score of 92 percent in each ear. Under Table VI of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, the scores for each ear correlate to Roman numeral I. A noncompensable rating is warranted under Diagnostic Code 6100 when these auditory acuity levels are entered into Table VII of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. In July 2015, the Veteran underwent a second VA audiological examination. Puretone thresholds were as follows: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 30 75 80 LEFT 20 40 80 75 The puretone threshold average was 51 in the right ear and 54 in the left ear. Using the Maryland CNC speech recognition test, speech audiometry results revealed a speech recognition ability score of 94 percent in the right ear and 84 percent in the left ear. Under Table VI of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, the score for the right ear correlates to Roman numeral I, and the score for the left ear correlates to Roman numeral II. A noncompensable rating is warranted based on these auditory acuity levels. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VII. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s representative’s request for a new examination. See November 2018 Appellate Brief, p. 1. However, the Veteran has not alleged a worsening of his bilateral hearing loss since the time of the July 2015 examination, and the mere passage of time is not a sufficient basis for a new examination. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181 (2007). There is no allegation of any deficiencies in the examinations, and the Board finds the July 2012 and July 2015 examinations to be adequate. A new examination is not warranted. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss does not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 6100. The Veteran has characterized the functional impact of his hearing loss as difficulty hearing high frequencies, difficulty differentiating sounds, and difficulty understanding speech when there is background noise. See July 2015 VA Examination, p. 3; July 2012 VA Examination, p. 5. These functional impairments and related difficulties are factors contemplated by the regulations and schedular rating criteria. See Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447, 455 (2007). An increased rating is not warranted. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD W.V. Walker, Associate Counsel