Citation Nr: 20023070 Decision Date: 04/02/20 Archive Date: 04/02/20 DOCKET NO. 18-38 694 DATE: April 2, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT Throughout the claims period, the Veteran has had Level I hearing loss bilaterally, without additional functional limitations from abnormal ipsilateral or contralateral acoustic reflexes or the use of hearing aids. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3, 4.7, 4.85, Diagnostic Code (DC) 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1958 to June 1960. The case is on appeal from an April 2018 rating decision. This case has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its finding of fact and conclusion of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those reasonably raised by the record. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008). Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss Legal Criteria Ratings are based on a schedule of reductions in earning capacity from specific injuries or combination of injuries. The ratings shall be based, as far as practicable, upon the average impairments of earning capacity resulting from such injuries in civil occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155. 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. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation 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. 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 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3. Disability evaluations for hearing impairment 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). Examinations are conducted using the controlled speech discrimination tests together with the results of the pure tone audiometry test. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. The results are analyzed using tables contained in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, DC 6100. The rating schedule for hearing loss provides that evaluations of hearing loss range from noncompensable to 100 percent based on organic impairment of hearing acuity as measured by the results of controlled speech discrimination tests together with average hearing threshold levels as measured by pure tone audiometry tests in the frequencies 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 cycles per second (Hertz). Analysis The Veteran claims that his noncompensable rating for bilateral hearing loss does not reflect the severity of his symptoms. Specifically, the Veteran has noted that he has been given a hearing aid by VA to help him hear. The Veteran was first afforded a VA examination in conjunction with his hearing loss in December 2014. At that time, pure tone thresholds were: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 30 30 45 50 38.75 LEFT 35 35 40 50 40 Speech recognition scores were 96 percent for the right ear and 100 percent for the left ear. This testing shows that, under Table VI, the Veteran had Level I hearing loss bilaterally. Abnormal ipsilateral and contralateral acoustic reflexes were also noted. The Veteran described the functional impact of his hearing loss as decrease in speech recognition ability for the last 5-6 years. In a July 2016 appeal to the Board, the Veteran noted that he had been given hearing aids by VA. In July 2017, the Veteran underwent acoustic testing at a VA appointment. At that time, pure tone thresholds were: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 35 40 45 45 41.25 LEFT 40 45 45 55 46.25 Speech recognition scores were 96 percent bilaterally. This testing shows that, under Table VI, the Veteran had Level I hearing loss bilaterally. In his July 2018 appeal to the Board, the Veteran stated that he believed the evaluations used to determine his hearing loss rating were old and did not accurately reflect his current symptoms. He again noted that he was given hearing aids by VA for his hearing loss. Therefore, in September 2018, the Board remanded the claim to afford the Veteran a new VA examination of his hearing loss. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). On remand, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination of his hearing in October 2019, at which audiometric testing revealed the following pure tone thresholds: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 40 40 45 50 43.75 LEFT 40 50 50 55 48.75 Speech recognition scores were 96 percent bilaterally. This testing shows that, under Table VI, the Veteran had Level I hearing loss bilaterally. Abnormal ipsilateral and contralateral acoustic reflexes were also noted. The Veteran reported that his hearing loss resulted in difficulty understanding conversations. The Board finds that an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. Throughout the claims period, the Veteran has had Level I hearing loss bilaterally. Under Table VII, bilateral Level I hearing loss is to be assigned a noncompensable rating. The Veteran’s difficulty understanding conversation and with speech recognition ability are contemplated by the noncompensable rating assigned. Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017). Also, though the October 2019 VA examination showed slightly higher pure tone thresholds, the examination did not reveal that the Veteran’s hearing worsened such that a higher compensable rating would be warranted. Further, there is no additional functional impairment noted in the record stemming from the Veteran’s abnormal ipsilateral and contralateral acoustic reflexes. Finally, although the Veteran has been given hearing aids to hear better, there is no indication that the use of hearing aids presents additional functional limitation not contemplated by the rating assigned or in any way interfered with the examinations of record. Therefore, an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. George 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.