Citation Nr: 18154966 Decision Date: 12/04/18 Archive Date: 12/03/18 DOCKET NO. 16-59 457 DATE: December 4, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability manifested by no more than Level I impairment in the right ear and Level III impairment in the left ear during the period on appeal. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.321, 4.1-4.10, 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from October 1965 to October 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama, which, in relevant part, granted entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss with a noncompensable evaluation effective July 27, 2015. The Veteran submitted a Notice of Disagreement in June 2016 contesting the assigned disability evaluation. A Statement of the Case (SOC) was issued in November 2016. The Veteran perfected a timely Substantive Appeal via a VA Form 9 later in November 2016. The Board notes that additional treatment records, both VA and private, were associated with the claims file following the issuance of the November 2016 SOC. When additional evidence is received prior to the transfer of a case to the Board, a supplemental SOC must be furnished to the Veteran, and his or her representative, unless the additional evidence is duplicative or not relevant to the issue on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 19.37(a) (2017). Here, the records were associated with the claims file after the transfer of the appeal to the Board. Furthermore, the additional evidence relates primarily to other health conditions and is not pertinent to the hearing loss claim adjudicated in this decision. Accordingly, there is no prejudice to the Veteran in proceeding with adjudication of the appeal. 1. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss The Veteran seeks a higher rating for his service-connected bilateral hearing loss, rated as noncompensable from July 27, 2015. Disability evaluations are determined by the application of VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), found in 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The basis of disability evaluations is the ability of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and the residual conditions in civil occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(a), 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 and reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability; resolving any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability in favor of the claimant; where there is a question as to which of two evaluations apply, assigning a higher of the two where the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for the next higher rating; and evaluating functional impairment on the basis of lack of usefulness, and the effects of the disabilities upon the person’s ordinary activity. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991); 38 C.F.R. § 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10. In evaluating hearing loss, disability ratings are derived by a mechanical application of the Rating Schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometric evaluations are rendered. See Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1992). The Rating Schedule provides a table for rating purposes (Table VI) to determine a Roman numeral designation (I through XI) for hearing impairment, established by a state-licensed audiologist including a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC), and based upon a combination of the percent of speech discrimination and the pure tone threshold average, which is the sum of the pure tone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz, divided by four. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. Table VII is then used to determine the percentage evaluation by combining the Roman numeral designations for hearing impairment of each ear. Turning to the evidence, the Veteran underwent VA audiological examination in November 2015. His pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 25 35 45 45 60 LEFT 40 40 40 45 50 The average decibel loss was 46 in the right ear and 44 in the left ear. Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 96 percent in the right ear and 76 percent in the left ear. VA treatment records reflect that hearing aids were ordered for the Veteran following this evaluation. No further treatment for hearing loss is reflected in the medical evidence. After careful consideration of the evidence, the Board finds that the currently assigned noncompensable rating is appropriate throughout the period on appeal. The November 2015 VA audiological examination results reflect Level I hearing acuity in the right ear and Level III hearing acuity in the left ear under Table VI. Under Table VII, utilizing these designations, a compensable rating is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Tables VI and VII, Diagnostic Code 6100. No exceptional pattern of hearing impairment is present. The evidence of record includes multiple statements from the Veteran declaring his belief that a higher rating is warranted. The Board acknowledges the contentions put forth by the Veteran regarding his hearing difficulties and the impact his service-connected hearing loss has on his ability to understand speech. As a layperson, he is competent to report symptoms related to his hearing. However, he is not competent to assign particular speech recognition scores or pure tone decibel readings to his current acuity problems. Thus, the findings of the audiological examination are more probative than the lay contentions as to the extent of hearing loss. In this case, because disability ratings for hearing impairment are derived by a mechanical application of the Rating Schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometry evaluations are rendered, there is no doubt as to the proper evaluation to assign. Lendenmann, 3 Vet. App. at 345; 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Tables VI and VII, Diagnostic Code 6100. Thus, when applying the audiological examination test results described above under the Rating Schedule, the Board is compelled to find against entitlement to a compensable disability rating at any time during the period on appeal. In finding such, the Board reiterates that the Veteran is competent to report the symptoms related to his loss of hearing. He is also credible to the extent that he sincerely believes he is entitled to a higher rating. However, the competent and credible lay evidence is outweighed by the competent and credible medical evidence that evaluates the true extent of his disability based on objective data coupled with the lay complaints. Importantly, an initial noncompensable rating does not mean that the Veteran’s hearing is normal. The initial grant of service connection acknowledged that he has hearing loss, while the assigned rating reflects that the degree of disability of his hearing loss does not meet VA’s criteria for a compensable rating. In reaching the above conclusions, consideration has been given to the holding in Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447 (2007), which requires a VA audiologist to describe the functional effects of a hearing loss disability in the examination report. The November 2015 examination report includes recognition of the Veteran’s reported difficulty understanding speech, especially in groups, over background noise, and on the telephone. Because the examination report includes a discussion of the functional and occupational impact of the Veteran’s hearing loss, the Board finds that the report is adequate for rating purposes and entitled to significant probative value. See Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447 (2007); 38 C.F.R. § 4.1, 4.2, 4.10. Finally, the Veteran has not indicated that he experiences symptoms that are not contemplated by the criteria, to include the speech recognition scores. As noted above, the Veteran reports communication difficulties in a variety of settings, including in groups and on the telephone. However, such difficulty is contemplated in the hearing loss criteria. Cf. Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017) (difficulty in distinguishing sounds in a crowded environment, locating the source of sounds, understanding conversational speech, hearing the television, and using the telephone are each a manifestation of difficulty hearing or understanding speech, which is contemplated by the schedular rating criteria for hearing loss). Moreover, the Veteran has not claimed, and the evidence does not reflect, that there has been marked interference with employment, frequent hospitalization, or that his symptoms have otherwise rendered impractical the application of the regular schedular standards. Therefore, referral for consideration of an extraschedular rating for bilateral hearing loss disability is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). The Veteran has not raised any other issues with respect to the increased rating claim, nor have any other assertions been reasonably raised by the record. See Doucette, 28 Vet. App. at 369-70 (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jamison, Elizabeth G.