Citation Nr: 21070692 Decision Date: 11/24/21 Archive Date: 11/24/21 DOCKET NO. 20-06 312 DATE: November 24, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT At no time during the pendency of the claim is the Veteran's hearing acuity shown to have been worse than level II in the right ear or level I in the left. CONCLUSION OF LAW A compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.85, 4.86 Diagnostic Code (Code) 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from August 1968 to December 1970. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2018 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings, which is based on average impairment of earning capacity caused by the given disability. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. As this appeal is from the rating decision that granted service connection, and assigned the initial rating for the disability and an effective date, the entire period from the effective date of the award to the present is for consideration. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). When a question arises as to which of two ratings applies under a particular code, the higher rating is assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. After careful consideration of the evidence, any reasonable doubt remaining, including regarding degree of disability, is to be resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3. Ratings for hearing loss disability are derived from Table VII of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 by a mechanical application of the rating schedule to numeric designations assigned after audiometric evaluations are performed. Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1992). The numeric designations correspond to eleven auditory acuity levels, indicated by Roman numerals, where Level I denotes essentially normal acuity and Level XI denotes profound deafness. The assignment of the appropriate numeric level is based on the results of controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC) in combination with average hearing threshold. The average threshold is obtained from puretone audiometric tests in the frequencies of 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. Rating specialists use either Table VI or VIA of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 to determine the correct Roman numeral designation. Table VIA is used when speech discrimination tests are inappropriate due to language difficulties, inconsistent speech discrimination scores, etc., or where there is an exceptional pattern of hearing loss (as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 4.86). One such pattern occurs when the puretone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies is 55 decibels or more. Another occurs when the puretone threshold at 1000 Hertz is 30 decibels or less and the puretone threshold at 2000 Hertz is 70 decibels or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(a)(b). On August 2018 Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) evaluation, audiometry revealed that puretone thresholds, in decibels, were: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg Maryland CNC Speech Discrimination RIGHT 40 50 60 65 54 84 LEFT 10 35 50 55 38 94 Regarding the functional impact of the hearing loss, the Veteran reported that he had difficulty understanding others while conversing in noisy settings. The Veteran asserts that his hearing acuity has decreased and now warrants a compensable rating. Under governing regulations and the Caselaw cited above, determinations regarding the rating for hearing loss are based on results of audiometric testing. Although the Veteran is competent to observe and report his perception of a decline in hearing acuity, he is not competent to establish the level of severity of his hearing loss disability by his own lay observations. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The only audiometry of record adequate for rating purposes is that conducted on VA audiological evaluation in August 2018. Applying the results of the August 2018 VA examination to Table VI establishes that the Veteran had Level II hearing acuity in the right ear and Level I acuity in the left. Under Table VII, such hearing acuity warrants a 0 percent rating. The findings do not reflect an exceptional pattern of hearing loss, nor did the examiner indicate that speech recognition scores were unreliable; therefore, Table VIA is not for application. As the assignment of a disability rating for hearing impairment is derived by mechanical application of the rating schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometry evaluations are rendered, there is no doubt as to the proper schedular evaluation to be assigned. Lendenmann, 3 Vet. App. 345; 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Tables VI-VII, Code 6100. The findings on official audiometry on the August 2018 VA examination fall squarely within the parameters for a 0 percent rating, and that rating encompasses the Veteran's self-reported functional impairment (difficulty understanding others while conversing in noisy settings). The Board finds no reason to question the Veteran's description of functional impairment and accepts his reports as factual. However, such impairment is encompassed by the 0 percent rating that is assigned. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss, and the appeal in the matter must be denied. GEORGE R. SENYK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Chu, 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.