Citation Nr: 20009874 Decision Date: 02/05/20 Archive Date: 02/05/20 DOCKET NO. 16-00 248A DATE: February 5, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to an initial 10 percent rating for bilateral hearing loss on an accrued basis is granted. FINDING OF FACT For the entirety of the Veteran’s appeal, the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss has been manifested by no more than Roman numeral IV in his right ear and Roman numeral V in his left ear. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a 10 percent rating for bilateral hearing loss have been met for entirety of the period on appeal. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code (DC) 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1952 to August 1954. As an initial matter, the Board expresses its sympathy to the Appellant for the loss of her husband and recognizes the years of excellent service he provided to the country during his service in the United States Army. 1. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss on an accrued basis Disability ratings for hearing loss disability are derived from mechanical application of the rating schedule to the numeric designations resulting from audiometric testing. See Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345 (1992). Evaluations of defective hearing are based on organic impairment of hearing acuity as measured by the results of controlled speech discrimination testing together with the average hearing threshold level as measured by pure tone audiometry tests in the frequencies 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 and 4,000 Hertz. To evaluate the degree of disability from defective hearing, the rating schedule requires assignment of a Roman numeral designation, ranging from I to XI. Other than exceptional cases, VA arrives at the proper designation by mechanical application of Table VI, which determines the designation based on results of standard test parameters. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, DC 6100 (2016). Table VII is then applied to arrive at a rating based upon the respective Roman numeral designations for each ear. Id. Exceptional hearing impairment occurs when pure tone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz ) are 55 decibels or more, or when the pure tone threshold are 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz. In such cases, the rating specialist will determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIa, whichever results in the higher numeral. Each ear is to be evaluated separately. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. A review of the evidence of record reveals that the Veteran was afforded an April 2015 VA audiological examination and provided a August 2014 private audiological examination. The Board first turns to the April 2015 VA audiological examination which provided puretone thresholds, in decibels, as follows: Hertz 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average Right 40 50 50 55 55 50 Left 35 45 40 50 60 46 Speech Recognition Score revealed speech recognition ability of 92 percent in the right ear and 96 percent in the left ear. The Board will now follow the mechanical application of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. First, utilizing Table VI, the Veteran’s right ear hearing loss results are placed within the parameters of “Roman numeral I” for his examination in April 2015 VA examination. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Numeric Designation of Hearing Impairment Based on Puretone Threshold Average and Speech Discrimination - Table VI. Turning to the Veteran’s left ear, the hearing loss results for this ear are placed within the parameters of “Roman numeral I” for his April 2015 VA examination. Id. Second, utilizing Table VII, the Board has taken the results, for rating purposes results, from Table VI, “Roman numeral I” for the right ear and “Roman Numeral I” for the left ear. When placing these two results, “Roman numeral I” and “Roman numeral I,” within Table VII to determine the rating the results indicate that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing disability falls within a noncompensable rating evaluation. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 Percentage Evaluation for Hearing Impairment (Diagnostic Code 6100) - Table VII. Turning to the Veteran’s August 2014 private audiological examination, the Board notes that the results are presented in graphical form. As provided by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claim (Court) in Kelly v. Brown, the Board can interpret graphs. 7 Vet. App. 471, 474 (1995); see also Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 249 (2011) (noting the Board may interpret results from a private audiometric graph, if it felt it had the expertise, and holding that the Board may not ignore such private audiometric test results that are of record). As such Board in interpreting the private August 2014 audiological examination has found that the examiner provided puretone thresholds, in decibels, as follows: Hertz 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average Right 55 60 60 65 65 61 Left 60 60 60 70 70 64 Speech Recognition Score revealed speech recognition ability of 80 percent in the right ear and 80 percent in the left ear. As the Veteran’s threshold at each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz ) are 55 decibels or more, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.86, exceptional pattern of hearing impairment, are applied, and roman numeral designation for hearing impairment is to be assigned from either Table VI or Table VIa, whichever results in the higher numeral. The Board will now follow the mechanical application of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. First, utilizing Table VI, the Veteran’s right ear hearing loss results are placed within the parameters of “Roman numeral IV” for his examination in August 2014 private examination. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Numeric Designation of Hearing Impairment Based on Puretone Threshold Average and Speech Discrimination - Table VI. Turning to the Veteran’s left ear, the hearing loss results for this ear are placed within the parameters of “Roman numeral IV” for his August 2014 private examination. Id. Turning to the mechanical application of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, now, utilizing Table VIa, the Veteran’s right ear hearing loss results are placed within the parameters of “Roman numeral IV” for his examination in August 2014 private examination. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Numeric Designation of Hearing Impairment Based on Puretone Threshold Average and Speech Discrimination - Table VI. Turning to the Veteran’s left ear, the hearing loss results for this ear are placed within the parameters of “Roman numeral V” for his August 2014 private examination. Id. As Table VIa has rendered the higher “Roman numeral” results, the Board will use those results to determine disability percentage from Table VII. Utilizing Table VII, the results “Roman numeral IV” and “Roman numeral V,” indicate that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing disability falls within a 10 percent rating evaluation. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 Percentage Evaluation for Hearing Impairment (Diagnostic Code 6100) - Table VII. The Board now must determine which of the examinations better represented the Veteran’s disability picture, in weighing the examinations probative value, the Board attention turns to the Appellants personal assertions in support of the claim. The Appellant is competent, as a layperson, to report on that to which he has personal knowledge, such as Veteran’s inability to understand conversations. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 310 (2007); and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a)(2). But as a layperson, without the appropriate medical training and expertise, she is not competent to provide a probative (persuasive) opinion on a medical matter, especially the severity of his bilateral hearing loss disability in terms of the applicable rating criteria. Rather, this necessarily requires appropriate medical findings regarding the extent and nature of his bilateral hearing loss, including audiometric testing for pure tone thresholds and speech recognition scores. Considering the foregoing, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the Veteran’s claim are in relative equipoise. Both examinations appear to be equally valid reporting auditory threshold and speech discrimination evidence. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Consequently, the Board finds that the benefit of the doubt should be provided, and the Veteran’s hearing loss should have been rated as 10 percent disabling, but no higher, for the entirety of the appeal period. GAYLE E. STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Acosta, 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.