Citation Nr: 21010808 Decision Date: 02/25/21 Archive Date: 02/25/21 DOCKET NO. 13-19 906 DATE: February 25, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 0 percent for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT Audiological testing showed the Veteran's hearing acuity was a level I in the right and left ears. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 0 percent for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1-4.7, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1967 to February 1970. The Veteran testified at a June 2016 Board videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). With respect to the Board hearing, the undersigned VLJ clarified the issues on appeal, identified potential evidentiary deficits, and clarified the type of evidence that would support the Veteran’s claim. These actions complied with any duties owed during a hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103. 1. Sensorineural hearing loss The Veteran contends a higher rating for hearing loss disability is warranted. Evaluations of defective hearing range from noncompensable to 100 percent based on 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 hearing, the rating schedule assigns Roman numeral designations, from I through XI. Generally, the Roman numerals are assigned based on the puretone threshold average and the percent of speech discrimination. The puretone threshold average is the sum of the puretone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz, divided by four. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(d). On Table VI (Numeric Designation of Hearing Impairment Based on Puretone Threshold Average and Speech Discrimination), the puretone threshold average is located along a horizontal axis and the percent of speech discrimination is located along a vertical axis. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VI. For each ear, the intersection of the puretone threshold average and the percent of speech discrimination on this table results in a Roman numeral designation. The Roman numerals are then matched based on the better ear and the poorer ear on Table VII (Percentage Evaluation for Hearing Impairment (Diagnostic Code 6100)) to produce a disability rating percentage under Diagnostic Code 6100. Exceptional patterns of hearing impairment are rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. Specifically, an exceptional pattern of hearing loss is hearing loss of 55 decibels or more in each of the four specified frequencies (i.e. 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz), and hearing loss with a pure tone threshold of 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 (a)-(b). The assignment of disability ratings for hearing impairment are derived by a mechanical application of the rating schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometric evaluations. See Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345 (1992). An April 2011 private audiological evaluation is of record, which reports both speech discrimination and a puretone audiometry test, but not what speech recognition test was used. In August 2016, the Veteran submitted copies of June 2016 audiometric test results that were conducted as part of VA treatment. The June 2016 audiometric test results noted that the CDIW-22 speech recognition test, and not the Maryland CNC test, was used. As such, these test results are inadequate for VA rating purposes. The applicable regulation state that an examination for hearing impairment for VA purposes must include a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC) and a puretone audiometry test. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a). A VA examination was obtained in June 2011. Maryland CNC Word List speech recognition score was 96 percent in the right ear and 94 in the left ear. Measured puretone threshold values were as follows: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 5 20 60 75 40 LEFT 15 25 60 75 40 The examiner noted both ears had sensorineural hearing loss. The examiner found that speech discrimination score was appropriate for the Veteran. In June 2017, the Board remanded the issue in order to obtain a new VA examination, as the Veteran had alleged worsening. A September 2017 VA examination shows that the Veteran's Maryland CNC Word List speech recognition score was 98 percent in the right ear and 94 percent in the left ear. Pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 10 30 70 85 49 LEFT 20 40 65 85 51 The examiner found the use of word recognition score is appropriate for the Veteran. The examiner found sensorineural hearing loss in the frequency range of 500-4000 Hz in both ears. The Board has considered the Veteran’s statements regarding his belief that a higher rating is warranted. However, VA compensation law requires controlled Maryland CNC speech discrimination test and average hearing threshold level measured by pure tone audiometry tests results. In essence, lay statements are of limited probative value. Laypeople are competent to report difficulty with hearing; however, laypeople are not competent to assign speech recognition scores or puretone decibel scores regarding current acuity problems. As indicated above, ratings of hearing loss disability involve mechanical application of the rating criteria to the findings on official audiometric records. See Lendenmann, supra. Use of the above audiological testing results from either VA compensation examination with Table VI shows Roman numerals I for the left ear and I for the right ear. Use of the resulting Roman numeral in conjunction with 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. To the extent the Veteran contends his hearing is worse than shown in VA examinations listed above, the Board has considered such a possibility. However, far more probative of the degree of the disability are the results of testing prepared by skilled professionals since the schedular criteria are predicated on audiological findings rather than subjective reports of the severity of hearing loss. Based on the evidence above, a compensable rating for the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability is not warranted. The Veteran’s symptoms have not more nearly approximated the criteria for a higher rating. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. The benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine therefore does not apply, and the claim for a compensable rating must be denied. H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P. Yoffe, 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.