Citation Nr: 20003206 Decision Date: 01/14/20 Archive Date: 01/14/20 DOCKET NO. 16-27 504 DATE: January 14, 2020 ORDER An initial compensable rating for a right ankle collateral ligament sprain is denied. REMANDED An initial compensable rating for left ear hearing loss is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active service from May to September 1973, with periods of Reserve service. 2. Residuals of a right ankle fracture have been manifested by subjective complaints of pain and instability; objective findings include normal range of motion, no ankylosis, and no malunion of the os calcis or astragalus with moderate deformity. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a compensable rating for right ankle collateral ligament sprain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1113, 1155, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.130, Diagnostic Code (DC) 5271 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION In connection with this appeal, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans’ Law Judge (VLJ) at the regional office (RO) in October 2019. A copy of the transcript has been associated with the record. Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings which is based on average impairment of earning capacity. Generally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The Veteran’s right ankle disability has been rated noncompensable under DC 5271 for a right ankle collateral ligament sprain. Under the relevant diagnostic codes, a 10 percent rating will be warranted when the objective evidence shows the following: • Marked limited motion of the left ankle; • Ankylosis of the subastragalar or tarsal joint in good weight bearing position; or • Malunion of the os calcis or astragalus with moderate deformity. Turning to the evidence, in a March 2015 VA examination, he reported experiencing some stiffness of the ankle in the mornings. He denied any flare-ups impacting the function of the ankle, or functional loss. Range of motion was normal upon examination, and there was no evidence of ankylosis or malunion of the os calcis or astragalus. In private treatment notes spanning from February to April 2016, the Veteran complained of pain and cramping in his right foot. Upon examination, his private treating physician found that the ankle was well-developed and without acute distress. There was no deformity or ulcerations, and muscle strength was intact. Range of motion was also intact. At the October 2019 hearing, the Veteran testified that his range of motion continued to be intact, and that while he experienced occasional stiffness and instability, there was no worsening or deformity. Based on the above, the medical evidence does not support a compensable rating. The totality of the evidence shows that the Veteran has normal range of motion in the right ankle. Further, there is no evidence of ankylosis or malunion of the os calcis or astragalus with moderate deformity. Therefore, the medical evidence does not support a compensable rating. The Board has also considered the Veteran’s lay statements that his disability warrants a higher rating. While he is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses, he is not competent to identify a specific level of disability of this disorder according to the appropriate diagnostic codes. Such competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the Veteran’s right ankle disability has been provided by the medical personnel who have examined him during the current appeal and who have rendered pertinent opinions in conjunction with the evaluations. The medical findings (as provided in the examination reports and other clinical evidence) directly address the criteria under which this disability is evaluated. Moreover, as the examiner has the requisite medical expertise to render a medical opinion regarding the degree of impairment caused by the disability and had sufficient facts and data on which to base the conclusion, the Board affords the medical opinion great probative value. As such, these records are more probative than the Veteran’s subjective complaints of increased symptomatology. In sum, after a careful review of the evidence of record, the benefit of the doubt rule is not applicable and the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (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). REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran claims that a compensable rating is warranted for his service-connected left ear hearing loss. The most recent VA audiology examination was conducted in March 2015 and he has alleged worsening of his hearing since that time. Additionally, a private audiological evaluation revealed mild to moderate left ear hearing loss. As such, a remand is required to schedule a new examination. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Identify and obtain any outstanding, pertinent, private and VA medical record and associate them with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected left ear hearing loss. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner. All pertinent symptomatology and findings must be reported in detail. 3. Readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the decision remains adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental   statement of the case, and wait the appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Yacoub, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.