Citation Nr: 21000866 Decision Date: 01/06/21 Archive Date: 01/06/21 DOCKET NO. 15-32 902 DATE: January 6, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT At worst, the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss has manifested by pure tone threshold averages and speech recognition scores that corresponded to no more than level II hearing acuity bilaterally. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85, 4.86 Diagnostic Code 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service in the United States Navy from June 1975 to January 1976. He testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a videoconference hearing in February 2019. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. By an April 2014 rating decision, the Veteran was granted service connection for left ear hearing loss, rated as noncompensable, effective June 18, 2013. He was denied service connection for right ear hearing loss. He disagreed with the denial of service connection for his right ear and the rating assigned for his left ear in an August 2014 Notice of Disagreement (NOD). In June 2019, the Board granted service connection for right ear hearing loss and remanded the Veteran’s claim for a higher rating for his left ear hearing loss. A June 2019 rating decision effectuated the grant and an October 2020 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) continued the noncompensable rating for the Veteran’s now service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran has contended that, at a minimum, a 10 percent rating is warranted. See August 2014 NOD. 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. 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. Section 4.85(a) requires that an examination for hearing loss be conducted by a state-licensed audiologist and must include both a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC test) and a pure tone audiometry test. Examinations must be conducted without the use of hearing aids. 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. § 4.85. 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). At the outset, the Board recognizes that pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(b), when the pure tone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz, and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz, the rating specialist is to determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIa, whichever results in the higher numeral. However, at no point during the appeal period has the Veteran demonstrated an exceptional pattern of hearing loss. Thus, Table VIA is not applicable and the Veteran’s hearing loss will be evaluated under Table VI. Under Table VI, in order to warrant a 10 percent rating, the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss must have manifested by at least level III hearing acuity in one ear and level IV hearing acuity in the other. The Veteran’s VA treatment records document a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss and complaints related to his hearing aids, but do not contain hearing acuity measurements. The Veteran submitted a private audiology report in December 2012. These records indicate that his pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 10 20 20 80 90 LEFT 35 30 30 80 80 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 90 percent bilaterally. The average decibel loss was 53 in the right ear and 55 in the left. This would equate to level II hearing acuity bilaterally. As noted above, these measurements would not warrant a compensable rating.   The Veteran submitted another private audiology report in February 2014. On the authorized audiological evaluation, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 15 15 15 70 85 LEFT 25 25 25 75 95 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 88 percent bilaterally. The average decibel loss was 46 in the right ear and 55 in the left. This would equate to level II hearing acuity bilaterally. As noted above, these measurements would not warrant a compensable rating. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination for his hearing loss in March 2014. At the time, he reported difficulty understanding in crowded listening situations. On the authorized audiological evaluation, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 15 20 30 75 90 LEFT 35 25 25 80 100 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 98 percent in the right ear and of 100 in the left ear. The average decibel loss was 54 percent in the right ear and 58 percent in the left. This would equate to level I hearing acuity in the right ear and level II hearing acuity in the left. These measurements do not meet the criteria for a compensable rating. At his Board hearing, the Veteran reported that his hearing had worsened. Indeed, VA treatment records from September 2018 document that he was seen for a followup regarding his hearing aids as he “stated that he is not hearing very well with the recently repaired” aids. See also June 2017 VA Treatment Records (noting the Veteran reported low benefit from his hearing aids in the few months prior). As a result, the Veteran was afforded another VA examination for his hearing loss in December 2019. On the authorized audiological evaluation, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 20 35 75 90 LEFT 30 30 35 85 90 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 100 percent bilaterally. The average decibel loss was 55 in the right ear and 60 in the left. This would equate to level I hearing acuity in right ear and level II hearing acuity in the left. These measurements do not warrant a compensable rating. When considering all of the evidence of record, the Board finds that at no point during the appeal period is a compensable rating warranted for the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. He does not meet the necessary threshold requirements for a higher rating based on 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. As noted above, disability ratings for hearing impairment are to be derived by the mechanical application of the Rating Schedule to the numeric designations assigned based on audiometric evaluations. The Board, however, has considered the Veteran’s statements regarding the severity of his hearing loss and how it has affected his daily activities. The Board does not dispute that the Veteran has impaired hearing; he competent to report that he has decreased hearing. However, the more probative evidence concerning the level of severity of this disorder consists of the audiometric testing results of record. Put differently, although the Veteran is competent to report that he has hearing loss, he is not competent to state the exact level of hearing loss as it applies to VA’s Rating Schedule. Thus, the medical evidence of record is more probative. A noncompensable rating does not mean that the Veteran’s hearing is normal. The initial grant of service connection acknowledged that he has hearing loss, and the assigned rating reflects that the degree of disability of his hearing loss does not meet VA’s criteria for a compensable rating. For these reasons, the Board finds the Veteran’s claim for an increase must be denied. There is no reasonable doubt to be resolved in this case. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Martha R. Luboch, 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.