Citation Nr: 19123727 Decision Date: 03/29/19 Archive Date: 03/29/19 DOCKET NO. 17-45 724 DATE: March 29, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss (BLHL) disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The weight of the competent and probative evidence reflects no more than Level III hearing, at worse, in either ear. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.85-4.86, DC 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1977 to December 1980. This matter is on appeal from a September 2016 rating decision. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for BLHL disability An initial, noncompensable disability evaluation has been in effect for BLHL since August 19, 2015. The Board finds that the noncompensable evaluation is an appropriate assessment of the medical evidence of record throughout the entire period on appeal. Disability ratings are based on the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. Where there is a question as to which of two ratings shall be applied, the higher evaluations will be assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. For increased compensation for hearing loss, the basis for evaluating defective hearing is the impairment of auditory acuity as measured by pure tone threshold averages, within the range of 1000 to 4000 Hertz and speech discrimination using the Maryland CNC word recognition test. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. Pure tone threshold averages are derived by dividing the sum of the pure tone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 by four. Id. The pure tone threshold averages and the Maryland CNC test scores are given a numeric designation, which are then used to determine the current level of disability based upon a pre-designated schedule. Tables VI and VII in 38 C.F.R. § 4.8. Under these criteria, the assignment of a disability rating is a "mechanical" process of comparing the audiometric evaluation to the numeric designations in the rating schedule. See Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1993). The Veteran was afforded a VA audiological examination in August 2016. The Veteran reported functional impairment from hearing loss with “difficulty hearing and understanding speech in crowds or background noise.” The audiological evaluation conducted during the VA audiology exam revealed the following pure tone thresholds, in decibels: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 30 25 40 65 75 LEFT 30 25 35 50 65 The Veteran's August 2016 VA audiology examination shows a right ear pure tone threshold average of 51.25 decibels with speech recognition of 92 percent and a left ear pure tone threshold average of 43.75 decibels with speech recognition of 92 percent. These figures correspond to a numeric designation of "I" for both ears. Table VI in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. These combined numeric designations then result in a rating of 0 percent under Table VII. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VII. The Veteran next underwent audiological testing at the Ashville VAMC in December 2016. The Veteran reported similar symptomatology including difficulty understanding others in both noisy places and quieter meetings and on the telephone, or at large family gatherings. The audiological evaluation revealed the following pure tone thresholds, in decibels: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 35 30 40 75 85 LEFT 30 30 30 60 75 The Veteran's December 2016 VAMC evaluation shows a right ear pure tone threshold average of 57.5 decibels with speech recognition of 88 percent and a left ear pure tone threshold average of 48.75 decibels with speech recognition of 92 percent. These figures correspond to a numeric designation of "III" for the right ear and “I” for the left ear. Table VI in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. These combined numeric designations then result in a rating of 0 percent under Table VII. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VII. The medical evidence of record does not indicate the Veteran meets the requirements for a higher rating based on 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 at any time during the period on appeal. Thus, the Veteran is not entitled to a compensable rating for his bilateral hearing loss. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's assertion that his hearing loss warrants a compensable rating. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to give evidence about what he experiences; for example, he is competent to discuss his hearing difficulties. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). Furthermore, the Board finds the Veteran's statements to be credible. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307 -08 (2007); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368-69 (2005). However, the Board notes that the decibel loss and speech discrimination ranges designated for each level of hearing impairment in Tables VI and VIA were chosen in relation to clinical findings of the impairment experienced by veterans with certain degrees and types of hearing disability, including difficulty hearing in the presence of environmental noise. Therefore, the Board finds that the rating criteria reasonably describe the Veteran's disability level and symptomatology for his service-connected disability. As such, the Board finds that the rating schedule is adequate to evaluate the Veteran's disability picture. The evidence of record does not warrant a rating in excess of that assigned for the Veteran's hearing loss at any time during the period pertinent to this appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 5110. MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Marcus J. Colicelli