Citation Nr: 20008335 Decision Date: 01/31/20 Archive Date: 01/31/20 DOCKET NO. 19-24 700 DATE: January 31, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 0 percent for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT On VA audiological testing in September 2017, the Veteran’s hearing acuity was a Roman Numeral I in the right ear and a Roman Numeral I in the left ear. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1964 to April 1977. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an October 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board is cognizant that the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that a claim for a total rating based on individual unemployability due to a service-connected disability (TDIU), either expressly raised by the Veteran or reasonably raised by the record, is part of the claim for an increased rating. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). However, in this case the Veteran is rated as 100 percent disabled and is in receipt of SMC payable at the housebound rate under 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (s). Therefore, the award of a TDIU would result in no further benefit, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU is rendered moot, and the Board need not consider the issue of entitlement to a TDIU. See Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 250 (2011); Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280, 294 (2008). Bilateral Hearing Loss- Increased Rating Disability ratings are determined by the application of VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Schedule), which is based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Pertinent regulations do not require that all cases show all findings specified by the Schedule, but that findings sufficient to identify the disease and the resulting disability and, above all, coordination of the rating with impairment of function will be expected in all cases. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21; see also Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (2002). When after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding the degree of disability such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Where there is a question as to which of two ratings shall be applied, the higher rating 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. The Board will consider whether separate ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time based on facts found, a practice known as “staged ratings,” in all claims for increased ratings. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126-27 (1999). The “assignment of disability ratings for hearing impairment are derived by a mechanical application of the rating schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometric evaluations.” See Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345 (1992). To evaluate the degree of disability from hearing impairment, the rating schedule assigns Roman numeral designations, from I through XI. Generally, the Roman numerals are assigned based on the puretone threshold average and the percent of speech discrimination. The puretone threshold average is the sum of the puretone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz, divided by four. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 (d). On Table VI (“Numeric Designation of Hearing Impairment Based on Puretone Threshold Average and Speech Discrimination”), the puretone threshold average is located along a horizontal axis and the percent of speech discrimination is located along a vertical axis. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VI. For each ear, the intersection of the puretone threshold average and the percent of speech discrimination on this table results in a Roman numeral designation. The Roman numerals are then matched based on the “better” ear and the “poorer” ear on Table VII (“Percentage Evaluation for Hearing Impairment (Diagnostic Code 6100)”) to produce a disability rating percentage under Diagnostic Code 6100. Exceptional patterns of hearing impairment are rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. Specifically, an exceptional pattern of hearing loss is hearing loss of 55 decibels or more in each of the four specified frequencies (i.e. 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz), and hearing loss with a pure tone threshold of 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 (a)-(b). In a September 2017 VA audiological examination puretone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: Hertz 1000 2000 3000 4000 Left 20 15 45 60 Right 20 10 15 40 Average decibel loss was 35 in the left ear and 21 in the right ear. Speech discrimination was 96 percent in the left ear and 96 percent in the right ear (Maryland CNC word list). The Veteran does not have a “exceptional patterns of hearing loss” as outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. For speech discrimination of 92 percent or above (as here), puretone threshold average must be above 57 to warrant anything besides a Roman Numeral I on Table VI. On no testing has the Veteran’s puretone threshold average exceeded 35. Therefore, using Table VI, the Veteran is assigned a I for both ears. Use of the Roman Numerals I for poorer ear and I for better ear results in a noncompensable rating on Table VII. Based on a careful review of all the evidence, the Board finds that a compensable rating for the Veteran’s service-connected bilateral hearing loss is not warranted for any period on appeal. To the extent that the Veteran reports that his acuity is worse than evaluated, the Board has considered his statements, but such lay statements are of limited probative value. As a layperson, the Veteran is competent to report difficulty with his hearing; however, he is not competent to assign particular speech recognition scores or puretone decibel reading to his current acuity problems. As indicated above, ratings of hearing loss disability involve mechanical application of the rating criteria to the findings on official audiometry. See Lendenmann, supra. The evidence is not in equipoise and the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). (Continued on the next page)   (Continued on the next page) R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. St. Laurent, 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.