Citation Nr: 21025875 Decision Date: 04/29/21 Archive Date: 04/29/21 DOCKET NO. 18-02 474 DATE: April 29, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for left ear hearing loss, to include on an extraschedular basis, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s service-connected left ear hearing loss is manifested by hearing acuity no worse than Level II, with no exceptional pattern of hearing loss, and no referral for extraschedular consideration is warranted. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for the assignment of an initial compensable rating for left ear hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1987 to July 1993, from June 2003 to October 2003, from November 2003 to January 2004, and from June 2004 to April 2005. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In September 2020, the Veteran appeared for a hearing before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. As an initial matter, although the issue of entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss was including in the December 2017 Statement of the Case (SOC), the Board notes that this issue was not included on the Veteran’s VA Form 9, and as such was not certified for appeal. Accordingly, this issue is not currently before the Board. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for left ear hearing loss is denied. Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which is based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Individual disabilities are assigned separate diagnostic codes. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. The basis of disability ratings is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body, to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. The Rating Schedule provides a table (Table VI) to determine a Roman numeral designation (I through XI) for hearing impairment, based on puretone thresholds and controlled speech discrimination (Maryland CNC) testing. Table VII is used to determine the rating assigned by combining the Roman numeral designations for hearing impairment of each ear. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. The “puretone threshold average” as used in Table VI, is the sum of the puretone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz, divided by four. This average determines the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from Table VI or Via. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(d). If impaired hearing is service connected in only one ear, in order to determine the percentage evaluation from Table VII, the non-service-connected ear will be assigned a Roman Numeral designation for hearing impairment of I, subject to the provisions of § 3.383 of this chapter. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(f). Ratings for hearing impairment are 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. 345 (1992). When the puretone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies (1,000, 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 Hertz) is 55 decibels or more, Table VI or Table Via is to be used, whichever results in the higher Roman numeral. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 (a). Additionally, when the puretone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1,000 Hertz, and 70 decibels or more at 2,000 Hertz, Table VI or Table Via is to be used, whichever results in the higher Roman numeral. Thereafter, that numeral will be elevated to the next higher Roman numeral. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(b). The Veteran’s service-connected left ear hearing loss disability is currently assigned a noncompensable rating under Diagnostic Code (DC) 6100. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a higher disability rating. Specifically, at his Board hearing, the Veteran testified that, although he was currently working, his hearing loss prevented him from getting the job that he wanted because he did not pass the hearing evaluation required to enlist in the Reserves. In support of this assertion, the Veteran submitted a document, dated in November 2016, indicating that he was denied a waiver for his hearing loss. He further testified at his hearing that he had to look at people when they spoke because it was otherwise difficult to understand what they said. He also reported that he had to turn the volume on the phone all the way up or use his other ear to hear the conversation better. The Veteran’s medical treatment records are silent for any complaints, treatment, or hearing tests for hearing loss. On VA audiological examination in February 2017, puretone thresholds for the Veteran’s left ear, in decibels, at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz were as follows: 5, 15, 55, and 60, for an average of 34. The speech recognition score, using the Maryland CNC Test, was 88 percent in his left ear. The Veteran reported that if someone was talking quietly or there was other noise around, he had to concentrate and focus more. Evaluating these VA audiological test results cited above, the Board finds that, when the puretone threshold averages and the speech recognition scores for the Veteran’s left ear from the February 2017 VA examination are applied to Table VI, the numeric designation of hearing impairment is Level II for the left ear. When this numeric designation for the nonservice-connected right ear is considered together with the left ear and applied to Table VII (Percentage Evaluation for Hearing Impairment-Diagnostic Code 6100), the percentage of disability for hearing impairment is zero percent, and a compensable rating is therefore not warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, DC 6100. Throughout the period on appeal, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.86, which address exceptional patterns of hearing loss, are not applicable. There is no showing that the Veteran had an exceptional pattern of hearing loss in his left ear at any time during this appeal period. Consideration has also been given to the functional effects of the Veteran’s left hearing loss. The Board is mindful that an audiologist must provide a description of the functional effects caused by a hearing loss disability. Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447 (2007). On the February 2017 VA examination, the Veteran indicated that he had to concentrate and focus more if someone spoke quietly or there was noise around. The Board finds this comment sufficient to comply with the applicable VA policies. Id. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has difficulty hearing and has indicated did not qualify for the particular job that he wanted as a result of his hearing loss. However, in this case, the Board finds that the record does not show that the Veteran’s left ear hearing loss is so exceptional or unusual as to warrant the assignment of a higher rating on an extraschedular basis. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). Here, the rating criteria contemplates the Veteran’s reported decreased hearing acuity and difficulty in understanding conversational speech. “[W]hen a claimant’s hearing loss results in an inability to hear or understand speech or to hear other sounds in various contexts, those effects are contemplated by the schedular rating criteria.” Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-70 (2017). The Board finds that other than difficulty hearing, the record on appeal contains no evidence of other symptoms attributable to the service-connected hearing loss not contemplated by the rating criteria. See Mittleider v. West, 11 Vet. App. 181 (1998). While the Board is sympathetic toward the Veteran’s circumstances, namely that he may not qualify for certain jobs due to his hearing loss, his symptoms are not so unusual that they are outside the schedular criteria, and the requirements for an extraschedular evaluation for the Veteran’s service-connected left ear hearing loss under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) have not been met. Bagwell v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 337 (1996); Shipwash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 218 (1995); Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008). Although the Board recognizes that the Veteran may have difficulty hearing, the evaluation of hearing loss is reached by a mechanical application of the rating schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometric evaluations are rendered. Lendenmann, 3 Vet. App. at 345. The requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 set out the percentage ratings for exact numerical levels of impairment required for an evaluation of hearing loss, which requires specific testing. In this case, such mechanical application does not warrant a compensable rating. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for a compensable rating for the service-connected left ear hearing loss. This claim, therefore, must be denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Thomas H. O'Shay Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Hite, 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.