Citation Nr: 21021847 Decision Date: 04/14/21 Archive Date: 04/14/21 DOCKET NO. 16-34 871 DATE: April 14, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for left ear hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT Audiological evaluations reflect the Veteran’s service-connected left ear hearing loss has been manifested by no worse than Level IX hearing impairment. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an initial compensable rating for left ear hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.321, 3.385, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code (DC) 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the Marine Corps from April 1982 to February 1983. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for left ear hearing loss is denied. Disability evaluations (ratings) are determined by evaluating the extent to which a veteran’s service-connected disability adversely affects his ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment, by comparing the symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule). 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10. In a claim for a greater original rating after an initial award of service connection, all the evidence submitted in support of the Veteran’s claim is to be considered. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). Hearing loss is evaluated under 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85, 4.86, DC 6100, Tables VI, VIA, and VII of VA’s rating schedule. The Rating Schedule provides a table for rating purposes (Table VI) to determine a Roman numeral designation (I through XI) for hearing impairment, established by a state-licensed audiologist including a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC), and based upon a combination of the percent of speech discrimination and the puretone threshold average which is the sum of the puretone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz, divided by four. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. Table VII is used to determine the percentage evaluation by combining the Roman numeral designations for hearing impairment of each ear. The horizontal row represents the ear having the poorer hearing and the vertical column represents the ear having the better hearing. Id. The Court has held that the assignment of disability ratings for hearing impairment are to be derived by the mechanical application of the Rating Schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometry evaluations are rendered. Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345777 (1992). Simply stated, this means that while the Veteran may have hearing problems (this fact is not in dispute), whether he has hearing loss warranting compensation is based on certain objective criteria. The only question is the degree of disability. The Veteran was afforded an examination for his hearing in April 2013. The puretone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 LEFT 100 85 90 95 The average puretone threshold decibel loss was 92 dB in the left ear. Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 76 percent in the left ear. The results in this evaluation reveal the Veteran’s hearing loss was manifested by no more than level V hearing acuity in the left ear. Such designations equate to a noncompensable evaluation. The Board has also considered the Veteran’s hearing loss under the provisions regarding exceptional patterns of hearing loss. Under this provision, the Veteran’s left ear hearing loss was manifested by no more than level IX hearing acuity which also equates to a noncompensable rating. The Veteran had another examination for his hearing loss in January 2016. The puretone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 LEFT 100 85 85 95 The average puretone threshold decibel loss was 91 dB in the left ear. Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 71 percent in the left ear. The results in this evaluation reveal the Veteran’s hearing loss was manifested by no more than level VII hearing acuity in the left ear. Such designations equate to a noncompensable evaluation. The Board has also considered the Veteran’s hearing loss under the provisions regarding exceptional patterns of hearing loss. Under this provision, the Veteran’s left ear hearing loss was manifested by no more than level IX hearing acuity which also equates to a noncompensable rating. Regarding all the above, the Board recognizes the Veteran’s left ear hearing loss causes problems and the discussion above does not mean the Veteran does not suffer from difficulties due to his left ear hearing loss. The Board also acknowledges the Veteran believes his left ear hearing loss is worse than his rating provides. However, while the Veteran is competent to relate the symptoms he experiences, he is not competent to opine on complex medical issues, such as the severity of a medically diagnosed condition. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the medical evidence. The Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-57 (1990). John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Holcombe, 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.