Citation Nr: 21040798 Decision Date: 07/07/21 Archive Date: 07/07/21 DOCKET NO. 16-53 280 DATE: July 7, 2021 ORDER A compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss, to include on an extraschedular basis, is denied. FINDING OF FACT 1. Audiological testing of the Veteran's bilateral hearing acuity in April 2016 and September 2020 when applied to Table VI and Table VII results in a noncompensable rating. 2. The evidence is insufficient to show that the symptoms of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss have demonstrated an exceptional or unusual disability picture that has caused marked interference with his employment or frequent periods of hospitalization. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss, to include on an extraschedular basis, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 3.383, 3.385, 4.85-4.87, Diagnostic Code 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from September 1971 to September 1975. He is seeking a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss, to include on an extraschedular evaluation. A July 1991 rating decision granted service connection for right ear hearing loss with a noncompensable rating, and denied the left ear hearing loss because the left ear had normal hearing at that time. The Veteran filed an increased hearing loss claim which was received by VA in December 2015. A May 2016 rating decision granted service connection for left ear hearing loss and denied a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. A November 2018 Board decision remanded the issue to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to obtain private medical records. Such development has been completed. Schedular Evaluation The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is evaluated under Diagnostic Code 6100. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85, 4.86. In evaluating service-connected hearing loss, disability ratings are derived by a mechanical application of the rating schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometric evaluations are performed. See Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1992). Hearing loss disability evaluations range from noncompensable to 100 percent based on organic impairment of hearing acuity, as measured by controlled speech discrimination tests in conjunction with the average hearing threshold, as measured by pure tone audiometric tests in the frequencies 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 and 4,000 cycles per second. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. The rating schedule establishes 11 auditory acuity levels designated from Level I for essentially normal hearing acuity, through Level XI for profound deafness. VA audiometric examinations are conducted using a controlled speech discrimination test together with the results of a puretone audiometry test. The vertical lines in Table VI (in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85) represent nine categories of the percentage of discrimination based on the controlled speech discrimination test. The horizontal columns in Table VI represent nine categories of decibel loss based on the puretone audiometry test. The numeric designation of impaired hearing (Levels I through XI) is determined for each ear by intersecting the vertical row appropriate for the percentage of discrimination and the horizontal column appropriate to the puretone decibel loss. The percentage evaluation is found from Table VII (in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85) by intersecting the vertical column appropriate for the numeric designation for the ear having the better hearing acuity and the horizontal row appropriate to the numeric designation level for the ear having the poorer hearing acuity. When the puretone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz) is 55 decibels or more, 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. Each ear will be evaluated separately. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(a). When the puretone 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. That numeral will then be elevated to the next higher Roman numeral. Each ear will be evaluated separately. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(b). In April 2016, the Veteran underwent VA audiometric testing which shows the following results: Hertz 1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg. Maryland CNC Right 45 50 55 50 50 100% Left 40 40 55 55 47.5 100% In September 2020, the Veteran underwent VA audiometric testing which shows the following results: Hertz 1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg. Maryland CNC Right 45 30 50 50 43.75 98% Left 45 25 50 35 38.75 96% A private audiogram dated February 2015 shows the following results: Hertz 1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg. Right 55 45 50 50 50 Left 55 35 45 45 45 The private audiogram did not contain Maryland CNC scores. However, the findings of decibel loss are comparable from the VA hearing tests and thus would not mandate a higher rating. Neither ear has puretone threshold disparity at 1000 Hertz and 2000 Hertz level as described by 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(b), nor has there been decibel loss of 55 or more at each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz). Therefore, Table VIA is not applicable here. Applying Table VI to the April 2016 and September 2020 audiological testing, the combination of average decibel loss (50 in 2016 and 44 in 2020) and speech recognition score (100 percent 2016 and 98 percent in 2020) in the right ear equates to Level I in 2016 and 2020. The combination of average decibel loss (48 in 2016 and 39 in 2020) and speech recognition score (100 percent 2016 and 96 percent in 2020) in the left ear equates to Level I in 2016 and 2020. When these results are combined on Table VII, the result equates to a noncompensable rating on both tests. As the audiometric testing does not support a compensable rating, the increased rating claim for hearing loss is denied on a schedular basis. Extraschedular Evaluation An extraschedular evaluation may be considered if the evidence shows that (1) the schedular rating criteria do not contemplate a veteran's level of disability and symptomatology and is inadequate to rate a single service connected disability, and (2) the disability picture is so unique and unusual that it exhibits other related factors that are consistent with an extraschedular rating, such as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization due exclusively to the disability. Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111, 115-116 (2008). That is, the assignment of a extraschedular rating is intended to be reserved for a situation in which the application of the regular schedular standards is impractical because the disability is so exceptional or unusual due to such related factors as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b) (emphasis added). In his Notice of Disagreement (NOD) dated May 2016 and his substantive appeal to the Board (Form 9) dated October 2016, the Veteran stated that his hearing impairment had impacted his qualify of life and caused undue hardship on his family and friends as well as his professional life. He reported to the April 2016 examiner that he was having difficulties understanding speech when the speaker sound source was at a distance, when there was background noises when communicating or listening, or when there was either poor lighting or the speaker was not face to face. This caused difficulties in his everyday communications at home and on the job. He also reported to the September 202 VA examiner that due to his hearing impairment, he had to ask people to repeat more often. The symptoms that the Veteran reported are exactly those contemplated by the rating criteria under DC 6100 for hearing loss. In addition, the evidence does not show and the Veteran does not allege that his hearing loss had caused frequent periods of hospitalization. While the Veteran reported that his hearing loss had caused undue hardship to his professional life in that he often had to ask people to repeat themselves, he did not report and evidence does not show that he frequently missed his work or could not perform his job due to hearing loss. The mere fact that he had difficulty to hear and had to ask periople to repeat themselves does not raised to the level of "marked" interference with employment. Accordingly, extraschedular evaluation is not warranted. In sum, a compensable rating for hearing loss, to include on an extraschedular basis is denied. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Q. Wang, 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.