Citation Nr: 21062937 Decision Date: 10/12/21 Archive Date: 10/12/21 DOCKET NO. 17-27 936 DATE: October 12, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had a hearing loss disability of either ear at any time during or proximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5107A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1986 to July 1989 and from August 1989 to August 1994. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a September 2013 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was previously remanded by the Board in July 2020. A review of the claims file shows that there has been substantial compliance with the Board's remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The case has been returned to the Board for review. In January 2020, the Veteran testified during a video conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. In July 2020, the Board remanded the claim of entitlement to service connection for vertigo for additional development. An April 2021 rating decision granted entitlement to service connection for vertigo. As this represents a total grant of the benefit sought on appeal with respect to this issue, it is no longer before the Board. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with regard to the duty to notify or duty to assist as they pertain to the issues decided herein. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. During the January 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran testified he worked around tanks as a repairman. For the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hz are 26 dB or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. In this case, the record does not show that the Veteran had a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes, as defined by 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, at any time during the appeal period or in proximity to the claim for service connection. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013). Specifically, the Veteran's service treatment records show that he underwent a hearing test March 1993. At that visit, he reported that he did not have hearing loss or wear a hearing aid. Additionally, testing revealed normal hearing bilaterally. The results of audiological testing at an August 2011 VA examination were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 10 5 10 10 10 LEFT 10 10 10 10 10 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition scores of 94 percent in the right ear and 94 percent in the left ear. Such audiometric and speech recognition findings do not reflect a hearing loss disability for VA purposes, as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The results of audiological testing at a March 2021 VA examination were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 5 15 10 10 5 LEFT 15 10 15 20 15 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition scores of 96 percent in the right ear and 100 percent in the left ear. Such audiometric and speech recognition findings do not reflect a hearing loss disability for VA purposes, as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Accordingly, the evidence of record, to include the March 1993 in-service testing and the August 2011 and March 2021 VA examinations, does not reveal a right or left ear hearing loss disability for VA purposes, as defined by 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. As such, the evidence does not show that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's contention that he has bilateral hearing loss that is etiologically attributable to in-service noise exposure. The Veteran, as a lay person, is competent to report that he has difficulty hearing; however, he is not competent to diagnose a hearing loss disability for VA compensation purposes. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336-37 (2006). Diagnosing a hearing loss disability for VA purposes requires specialized diagnostic testing. The Veteran has not been shown to possess the medical expertise or knowledge to diagnose a hearing loss disability. Therefore, his contentions do not constitute competent evidence of a current bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes, and do not weigh against the probative value of the relevant objective audiological test results of record. In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim for service connection. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Accordingly, without evidence of a current bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes, the Board need not address the other elements of service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. G. LeMoine, 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.