Citation Nr: 21077369 Decision Date: 12/29/21 Archive Date: 12/29/21 DOCKET NO. 17-47 161 DATE: December 29, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT Bilateral hearing loss disability is manifested by hearing acuity of no worse than Level II in the right ear and no worse than Level II in the left ear. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss disability have not been 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 November 1968 to April 1970. This case was previously before the Board in May 2021, at which time it was remanded for further development. The directives having been substantially complied with, the matter again is before the Board. D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss disability Disability evaluations are determined by the application of the facts presented to VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) at 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and the residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(a), 4.1. 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). A January 2015 VA examination reveals that the Veteran reported difficulty hearing. 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: January 2015 HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg CNC RIGHT 50 60 65 70 61 96 LEFT 20 60 65 65 53 96 Applying the results to Table VI, the findings yield a numeric designation of Level II in the right ear and Level I in the left ear. Entering the resulting bilateral numeric designation of Level II for the right ear and Level I 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. The Veteran has submitted private audiological examinations from October 2018 and October 2020. However, these examinations are not adequate for rating purposes, as they do not contain speech discrimination scores using the Maryland CNC word list. The Board notes that the October 2018 examination does list speech discrimination results but the tests were SRT and PTA. Even if CNC is assumed, the Veteran's speech recognition score and pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: October 2018 HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg Speech RIGHT 45 65 70 70 62.5 88 LEFT 25 65 75 70 58.75 92 Applying the results to Table VI, the findings yield a numeric designation of Level III in the right ear and Level II in the left ear. Entering the resulting bilateral numeric designation of Level III for the right ear and Level II for the left ear to 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VII, would equate 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. Therefore, clarification of the speech discrimination scores is unnecessary, as the reported scores would not result in a higher rating, even if they were obtained using the Maryland CNC Word List. The Veteran received another VA examination in August 2021. The Veteran's Maryland CNC Word List speech recognition score and pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: August 2021 HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg CNC RIGHT 35 65 70 80 62.5 92 LEFT 30 65 70 70 58.75 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 disability is not warranted. The Board expressly acknowledges its consideration of the lay evidence of record when adjudicating this claim, including difficulty hearing people speaking, especially with background noise. 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). Accordingly, the preponderance of the most probative evidence is against the claim of entitlement to a compensable rating for hearing loss. The evidence is not in approximate balance. 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). H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Creegan, Amanda 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.