Citation Nr: 21077103 Decision Date: 12/28/21 Archive Date: 12/28/21 DOCKET NO. 18-07 220 DATE: December 28, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's hearing loss was manifested by hearing impairment no worse than Level I in the right and left ears. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to a compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 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 June 1977 to December 1981. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2017 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing conducted by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in April 2021. This matter was previously before the Board in May 2021 and was remanded for additional development. The case is once again before the Board. Hearing loss Hearing loss is evaluated through the mechanical application of a veteran's audiometric test results to the rating tables set forth in the Rating Schedule. Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 367 (2017). The audiometric testing must be conducted by a state-license audiologist and must include a puretone audiometry test as well as a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC), without the use of hearing aids, for VA compensation purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a). The Rating Schedule utilizes three tables to evaluate hearing impairment: Tables VI, VIA, and VII. Table VII is used to determine the percentage evaluation by combining Roman numeral designations for the level of hearing impairment in each ear. These Roman numeral designations are obtained from Tables VI or VIA. Table VI is based on a combination of puretone threshold average and speech discrimination percentage. The Roman numerals range from I to XI. A higher Roman numeral is assigned based on a combination of a higher puretone threshold average and a lower speech discrimination percentage. If the use of speech discrimination is not appropriate, then Table VIA is the appropriate source of the Roman numeral designation, which is based solely on puretone threshold average. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(c). Puretone threshold average is the average of the puretone thresholds at the 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz (Hz) frequencies. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(d). Table VIA may also be used for "exceptional patterns of hearing impairment," where the puretone thresholds at each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz) are 55 decibels (dB) or more, or where the puretone thresholds are 30 dB or less at 1000 Hz and 70 dB or more at 2000 Hz. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an increased disability rating for his bilateral hearing loss because his current rating does not adequately portray the severity of his condition. The Veteran asserts that he has difficulty hearing the television and general conversation, especially if he cannot see the person speaking. He also stated that he has difficulty hearing car traffic, so he is extra cautious when near the road. In assessing the evidence of record, the Board recognizes the Veteran is competent to provide evidence regarding the lay observable symptoms of his hearing impairment. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307-08 (2007). VA rates hearing loss disability by mechanical application of the criteria set forth below to audiometric testing results. Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1992). Difficulty understanding conversations and hearing sounds in the environment are functional effects contemplated by the ratings criteria. Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 371-72 (2017). The Veteran has been examined by the VA on three occasions during the appeal period: May 2017, January 2019, and May 2021. During the May 2017 examination, the Veteran relayed that his hearing impairment impacted his ability to hear or understand others, especially on his left side. Audiometric testing at the time yielded the following results: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 30 35 40 30 33.75 LEFT 40 40 50 50 45 The speech recognition score was 94 percent in the right ear and 96 percent in the left ear. The examination did not reveal any exceptional patterns of hearing impairment as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 4.86, or that the speech recognition discrimination test was not appropriate for consideration. Therefore, Table VIA is inapplicable. Utilizing Table VI, the right ear combination of the 34 dB puretone threshold average and the 94 percent speech discrimination for right ear results in the designation of a Roman numeral I. The left ear combination of the 45 dB puretone threshold average and the 96 percent speech discrimination for left ear also results in the designation of a Roman numeral I. When the Roman numerals I and I are applied to Table VII, the resulting percentage evaluation is zero percent or noncompensable. During the January 2019 examination, the Veteran stated that his hearing impairment required him to ask people to repeat themselves and he had trouble hearing the television and in noisy situations. Audiometric testing at the time yielded the following results: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 20 25 40 35 30 LEFT 25 25 45 50 36.25 The speech recognition score was 94 percent in both the right and left ear. The examination did not reveal any exceptional patterns of hearing impairment as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 4.86, or that the speech recognition discrimination test was not appropriate for consideration. Therefore, Table VIA is inapplicable. Utilizing Table VI, the right ear combination of the 30 dB puretone threshold average and the 94 percent speech discrimination for right ear results in the designation of a Roman numeral I. The left ear combination of the 36 dB puretone threshold average and the 94 percent speech discrimination for left ear also results in the designation of a Roman numeral I. Again, when the Roman numerals I and I are applied to Table VII, the resulting percentage evaluation is zero percent or noncompensable. During the May 2021 examination, the Veteran again stated that his hearing impairment required him to ask people to repeat themselves and he had difficulty hearing environmental sounds and conversations if he was not facing the speaker. Audiometric testing at the time yielded the following results: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 30 35 45 35 36.25 LEFT 35 30 50 45 40 The speech recognition score was 100 percent in the right ear and 100 percent in the left ear. The examination did not reveal any exceptional patterns of hearing impairment as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 4.86, or that the speech recognition discrimination test was not appropriate for consideration. Therefore, Table VIA is inapplicable. Utilizing Table VI, the right ear combination of the 36 dB puretone threshold average and the 100 percent speech discrimination for right ear results in the designation of a Roman numeral I. The left ear combination of the 40 dB puretone threshold average and the 100 percent speech discrimination for left ear results in the designation of a Roman numeral I. As shown above, when the Roman numerals I and I are applied to Table VII, the resulting percentage evaluation is zero percent or noncompensable. VA treatment records are also of record and reflect the Veteran being diagnosed with hearing loss. However, nothing in these records indicate that his hearing loss is worse than what was reported in the above noted VA examinations, and these records do not contain any audiometric testing related to the appeal period. In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that entitlement to a compensable disability rating for service-connected bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. Based on the results of the audiological evaluations discussed above, and in the absence of any additional evidence showing a more severe hearing disability, the Veteran's hearing loss has not approximated the criteria for a compensable rating for the period on appeal. The Veteran's increased rating claim is therefore denied. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E.V. Palatt, 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.