Citation Nr: 21001324 Decision Date: 01/07/21 Archive Date: 01/07/21 DOCKET NO. 15-39 530 DATE: January 7, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The most probative evidence of record shows the Veteran’s hearing loss resulted in Level II hearing acuity in the right ear and Level II hearing acuity in the left ear. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to a compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 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 March 1985 to March 1989 and from April 1990 to June 1996. This matter was previously before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) and was remanded in January 2019 for further development and a new VA examination. This development has been completed and the matter is again before the Board. In July 2018, the Veteran testified at a travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. This is the only issue on appeal. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an increased rating for his bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran is currently service connected at the 0 percent disability rating under DC 6100 (hearing loss). 38 U.S.C. § 4.86. Evaluations of defective hearing range from noncompensable to 100 percent based on organic impairment of hearing acuity as measured by the results of a controlled Maryland CNC speech discrimination test together with the average hearing threshold level measured by pure tone audiometry tests in the frequencies of 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 cycles per second (Hertz). 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. To evaluate the degree of disability from bilateral service-connected hearing loss, the schedule establishes 11 auditory hearing acuity levels designated from Level I for essentially normal hearing acuity through Level XI for profound deafness. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Tables VI and VII. An exceptional pattern of hearing impairment occurs when the pure tone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz) is 55 decibels or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 (a). In that situation, 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. Further, when the average pure tone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz, and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz, 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, and that numeral will then be elevated to the next higher numeral. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 (b). An October 2020 VA examination reveals that the Veteran reported hearing loss that impacted his ordinary conditions of daily life. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10; Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447 (2007). The Veteran’s Maryland CNC Word List speech recognition score and pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: 10/02/2020 HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg CNC RIGHT 20 25 80 105 57.50 100 LEFT 20 30 75 105 57.50 96 Applying the results to Table VI, the findings yield a numeric designation of Level II in the right ear and Level II in the left ear. Entering the resulting bilateral numeric designation of Level II for the right ear and Level II for the left ear to 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VII, equates to a 0 percent disability rating under Diagnostic Code 6100. An exceptional pattern of hearing impairment under 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 was not shown. Based on the evidence above, a compensable rating for the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. The Board expressly acknowledges its consideration of the lay evidence of record when adjudicating this claim, including the following: having a hard time hearing the person in front of him; difficulty communicating on a daily basis; requiring frequent repetition; difficulty following conversations; difficulty hearing in noisy locations or situations; difficulty hearing women or children; answering or responding inappropriately in conversations; and stress from struggling to hear what others are saying. See November 2014 NOD; July 2018 Hearing Transcript. The Veteran is competent to report difficulty with his hearing; however, disability ratings for hearing loss are derived from a mechanical application of the rating schedule to the numeric designations resulting from audiometric testing. See Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345 (1992). The rating criteria contemplate speech reception thresholds and ability to hear spoken words on Maryland CNC testing. The functional impact that the Veteran describes, is contemplated by the rating criteria. Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017). The Veteran’s main complaint is reduced hearing acuity and clarity, which is what is contemplated in the rating assigned. See Rossy v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 142, 145 (2017). This does not suggest that the Veteran does not have problems, just not a problem that would provide a basis for a higher rating. Accordingly, the preponderance of the most probative evidence is against the claim of entitlement to a compensable rating for hearing loss. In reaching the conclusion above, the Board considered the doctrine of reasonable doubt, however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, the doctrine is not for application. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Laura Cochran, 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.