Citation Nr: A21020210 Decision Date: 12/17/21 Archive Date: 12/17/21 DOCKET NO. 210917-191989 DATE: December 17, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for hyperlipidemia is denied. Entitlement to a rating higher than 30 percent for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than May 10, 2018, for the grant of service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's lumbar spine disability is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to an in-service event, injury or disease. 2. The Veteran's cervical spine disability is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to an in-service event, injury or disease. 3. Hyperlipidemia is not a disability for VA compensation purposes. 4. VA audiological evaluation shows hearing impairment no worse than Level VI hearing in the right ear and Level VII hearing in the left ear. 5. A claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss was not received prior to May 10, 2018. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a lumbar spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for a cervical spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 3. The criteria for service connection for hyperlipidemia have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 4. The criteria for a rating higher than 30 percent for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100. 5. The criteria for an effective date earlier than May 10, 2018, for the grant of service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Air Force from March 1963 to December 1966. The Veteran died in November 2020, during the course of the appeal. The appellant, who is the Veteran's surviving spouse, has been substituted as the claimant in this matter. These issues arise from a September 2018 rating decision that was issued under the legacy system. Following the issuance of a statement of the case (SOC) in April 2020, the Veteran had opted the claims into the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), by submitting a timely VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: higher level review. Subsequently, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) issued an October 2020 higher level review rating decision. In September 2021, the appellant selected direct review by a Veterans Law Judge. Service Connection Service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, 3.304. Service connection generally requires evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Walker v. Shinseki, 701 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 1. Lumbar Spine and Cervical Spine The Veteran's service treatment records do not show any complaints or treatment related to the lumbar or cervical spine. VA treatment records show diagnoses and treatment for stenosis of the lumbar spine and of the cervical spine. Upon review, the record does not contain any indication of a nexus between the Veteran's disabilities of the lumbar and cervical spine and his active duty service. The Veteran was not diagnosed with lumbar spine and cervical spine disabilities until many years after his period of service. Aside from the claims, there is no evidence suggesting a link between the Veteran's lumbar spine and cervical spine disabilities and his active duty service. Absent any such indication of a link, there is no duty to obtain a VA examination or opinion prior to deciding these matters. Accordingly, service connection for a lumbar spine disability and for a cervical spine disability is not warranted, and the claims are denied. 2. Entitlement to service connection for hyperlipidemia VA treatment records show that the Veteran was diagnosed with hyperlipidemia. Hyperlipidemia is "a general term for elevated concentrations of any or all of the lipids in the plasma, including hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, etc." Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 792 (28th ed. 1994). Hyperlipidemia is a laboratory finding and is not a disability for which VA compensation benefits are payable. See 61 Fed. Reg. 20440, 20445 (May 7, 1996) (Diagnoses of hyperlipidemia, elevated triglycerides, and elevated cholesterol are laboratory results and are not disabilities). Accordingly, service connection for hyperlipidemia is denied as a matter of law. Increased Rating Disability evaluations are determined by comparing the Veteran's current symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Hearing loss is rated under 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85, 4.86, diagnostic code 6100. Under diagnostic code 6100, hearing impairment evaluations are derived by a mechanical application of the ratings schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometric evaluations are rendered. See Lendenmen v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1992). The ratings schedule provides a table for ratings purposes (Table VI) to determine a Roman numeral designation (I through XI) for hearing impairment. Table VII is used to determine the percentage evaluation by combining the Roman numeral designations for hearing impairment in both ears. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. The rating schedule allows for each ear to be evaluated separately where there is an exceptional pattern of hearing impairment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. When the pure tone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz) is 55 decibels or more, Table VI or Table VIa is to be used, whichever results in the higher numeral. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(a). Additionally, when the pure tone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz, and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz, Table VI or Table VIa is to be used, whichever results in the higher numeral. Thereafter, that numeral will be elevated to the next higher numeral. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(b). 3. Entitlement to a rating higher than 30 percent for bilateral hearing loss On VA audiological examination in August 2018, the Veteran reported that he had purchased a hearing aid for use for his left ear but had not worn it. He stated that he did not socialize due to his hearing difficulties and that he had difficulties hearing on the phone and while watching television. He had auditory thresholds of 45, 55, 55, 85, and 90 decibels at the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz for the right ear. The left ear had auditory thresholds of 50, 55, 65, 95, and 95 decibels at the same frequencies. The average pure tone decibel loss was 71 in the right ear and 78 in the left ear. Speech discrimination was 100 percent in the right ear, and 88 percent in the left ear. The August 2018 audiometric findings (71dB hearing loss with 100 percent word discrimination) warrant a numeric designation of Level II auditory acuity for the right ear, and Level III auditory acuity for the left ear (78 dB hearing loss with 88 percent speech discrimination), under table VI. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VI. The Veteran's pattern of hearing loss qualifies as an exceptional pattern under 38 C.F.R. § 4.68(a), so the numeric designation for the Veteran's hearing loss may be assigned either from Table VI or Table VIa. A numeric level VI designation is warranted for the right ear under Table Via and a numeric designation of VII is warranted for the left ear. Thus, using the numeric designations from Table VI is more favorable to the Veteran. Using the numeric designations pursuant to Table VI shows a level of hearing consistent with a 30 percent rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. Moreover, the Veteran did not report any unusual symptomatology that would be outside the type of symptoms and functional effects contemplated and compensated by VA's schedular rating criteria for hearing loss. The evidence of record fails to show that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability warrants a higher rating. Effective Date The effective date of an evaluation and award of compensation based on an original claim or a claim based on presumptive service connection will be, inter alia, the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400(b)(2)(i), (ii). 4. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than May 10, 2018, for the grant of service connection for bilateral hearing loss The appellant has not indicated why an effective date earlier than May 10, 2018 might be warranted. On May 10, 2018, the Veteran filed an original, fully developed claim seeking service connection for bilateral hearing loss. Accordingly, the Veteran was awarded an effective date of May 10, 2018 for grant of service connection. There was no correspondence received by VA prior to May 10, 2018, that can be construed as an informal or formal claim for service connection. Although entitlement to the benefit may have arisen earlier than May 10, 2018, the effective date will be the date of receipt of the claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(q)(2). (Continued on next page) For these reasons, the Board concludes that an effective date prior to May 10, 2018, is not warranted and the claim is denied. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Henriquez, 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.