HEARING LOSS

S. MERRICK · 2026 · Case ID: A26036287

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from September 1967 to November 1970, appeals the denial of increased ratings for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, and the dismissal of an issue related to a higher initial rating for PTSD. The Board denied an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss, finding the evidence did not warrant a rating higher than the current 20 percent, which was based on audiometric testing showing Level IV/VI hearing acuity and an exceptional hearing pattern. The Board noted that while the veteran claimed a higher rating, the mechanical application of rating schedule criteria to the audiometric results supported the current rating, and the benefit of the doubt doctrine was not applicable as the evidence weighed against an increased rating. For tinnitus, the Board denied an increased rating, stating no argument was submitted by the veteran to support a higher evaluation beyond a general contention of severity, and the current 10 percent rating is the maximum schedular award. The Board dismissed the PTSD issue as moot, noting that a subsequent rating decision had already granted the 100 percent rating the veteran sought on appeal. The veteran's service information, MOS, and discharge type were not explicitly detailed in the decision.

Rationale

Audiometric testing showed Level IV/VI hearing acuity; Exceptional hearing pattern met criteria for 20% rating; Evidence weighed against assignment of increased rating

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Diagnostic Code

6100

Docket No.

251114-616929

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26036287
Decision Date: 04/20/26 Archive Date: 04/20/26

DOCKET NO. 251114-616929
DATE: April 20, 2026

ORDER

For the entire appeal period, a rating in excess of 20 percent for the Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss is denied.

For the entire appeal period, a rating in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran's service-connected tinnitus is denied.

The issue of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is dismissed.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. For the entire appeal period, the Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss has been shown to be manifested by no more than Level V hearing acuity in the left and right ears based on an exceptional pattern of hearing impairment.

2. For the entire appeal period, the Veteran's current 10 percent evaluation for his service-connected tinnitus is the maximum schedular award available.

3. In a January 2026 rating decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) granted a 100 percent rating for PTSD effective May 7, 2025, which is a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal, and there remain no questions of law or fact to be decided by the Board.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. For the entire appeal period, the criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent for the Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100.

2. No legal basis exists for the assignment of a schedular disability rating in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran's service-connected tinnitus. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6260.

3. Because there is no longer a claim or controversy, the criteria for dismissal of the appeal for entitlement to a higher initial rating than 50 percent for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1967 to November 1970.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from June and July 2025 rating decisions of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) AOJ.

In July 2025 the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested review of the June 2025 decision. In September 2025, the AOJ issued the HLR decision on appeal, which considered the evidence of record at the time of the prior June 2025 decision.

In the November 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the June and July 2025 AOJ decisions on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

The Board notes that in the November 2025 VA Form 10182, the Veteran also listed the issues of left big toe, left leg condition, breathing condition, hepatitis, hypertension, liver cancer, lung condition, and migraine headaches. The Board notes that the issues of entitlement to service connection for left big toe and left leg were remanded in a March 2026 Board decision (Docket Number 250829-583725). The issues of entitlement to service connection for headaches, hepatitis, liver cancer, and pleural effusions were reopened and denied in a March 2026 Board decision (Docket Number 250829-583725). Lastly, the issue of an extension of time to file an appeal from a November 2023 rating decision that denied an increased rating for hypertension and service connection for a breathing condition was denied and the appeal was dismissed in an October 2025 Board decision (Docket Number 250829-583701). Thus, the Board will proceed with adjudication of the issues of entitlement to increased ratings for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and PTSD.

INCREASED RATING

Disability ratings are determined by evaluating the extent to which a Veteran's service-connected disability adversely affects their ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment, by comparing their symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule). See 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.10. If two ratings are potentially applicable, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the Veteran. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.3.

In evaluating the severity of a particular disability, it is essential to consider its history. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.41. However, where an increase in the disability rating, rather than the propriety of the initial rating, is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary importance, and past medical reports should not take precedence over current findings. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). Regardless of whether an appeal stems from disagreement with the initial rating assigned following an award of service connection or from disagreement with the rating assigned following a claim for increase, separate ratings can be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts found. See Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509-10 (2007) (citing Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999)).

For the entire appeal period, a rating in excess of 20 percent for the Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss is denied.

The Veteran asserts, without elaborating, that his service-connected bilateral hearing loss warrants a rating higher than the 20 percent rating currently assigned. However, after careful review, the Board finds that a compensable rating for the Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss is not warranted at any time during the claim period.

Evaluations of defective hearing range from noncompensable to 100 percent based on organic 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). See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. To evaluate the degree of disability service-connected hearing loss, the VA Rating Schedule establishes eleven auditory hearing acuity levels designated from Level I for essentially normal hearing acuity through Level XI for profound deafness. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Tables VI and VII.

An exceptional pattern of hearing impairment occurs when the pure tone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz) rises 55 decibels or more. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(a). In that situation, 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
the degree of disability service-connected hearing loss, the VA Rating Schedule establishes eleven auditory hearing acuity levels designated from Level I for essentially normal hearing acuity through Level XI for profound deafness. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Tables VI and VII.

An exceptional pattern of hearing impairment occurs when the pure tone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz) rises 55 decibels or more. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(a). In that situation, 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. Further, when the average pure tone 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, and that numeral will then be elevated to the next higher numeral. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(b).

Turning to the evidence of record, in July 2025, the Veteran was afforded a VA audiological examination to evaluate his service-connected bilateral hearing loss, which culminated in a report noting that the Veteran was diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Upon audiometric evaluation, the Veteran exhibited pure tone thresholds, in decibels, as follows:

HERTZ

1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg

RIGHT 60 60 60 70 63

LEFT 60 60 65 80 66

Maryland CNC speech discrimination test: Right ear 82 percent and left ear 70 percent.

The July 2025 audiometric findings result in a finding of Level IV hearing acuity in the right ear and Level VI in the left ear, which results in a 20 percent evaluation for hearing impairment under Table VII. However, the Veteran meets the criteria for an exceptional hearing pattern and thus the Board has also considered the applicability of Table VIA. This results in Level V for both the left and right ear which meets the criteria for a 20 percent rating. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Tables VI, VIA, and VII.

After careful review, the Board finds that for the entire claim period, the evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss disability does not warrant assignment of a rating excess of 20 percent under Diagnostic Code 6100.

The Board expressly acknowledges its consideration of the lay evidence of record when adjudicating this claim, as the Veteran is competent to report difficulty with his hearing; however, disability ratings for hearing loss are derived from a mechanical application of the rating schedule to the numeric designations resulting from audiometric testing. See Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345 (1992).

Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran has not manifested bilateral hearing loss meeting the criteria for the assignment of a rating in excess of 20 percent at any time during the period on appeal; therefore, as the evidence weighs persuasively against the assignment of an increased rating for the Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable, and the Veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 20 percent for his service-connected bilateral hearing loss must be denied. See Lynch, 21 F.4th at 781-82.

For the entire appeal period, a rating in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran's service-connected tinnitus is denied.

No argument has been submitted by the Veteran in support of his claim for an increased rating for his service-connected tinnitus. Notably, the Veteran's submissions were completed by his representative, and although a written brief was submitted in February 2026 it does not contain argument supporting the Veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected tinnitus, other than to obliquely state that the Veteran contends that a higher evaluation is warranted based on the "severity of the symptoms" of his condition. The February 2026 brief does not specify what those symptoms might be or why such symptoms are not adequately addressed by the maximum rating currently in effect.

In light of the foregoing, the Board finds the Veteran's service-connected tinnitus is currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling, which is the maximum schedular rating available for tinnitus, whether unilateral or bilateral, under Diagnostic Code 6260. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.71, 4.124a, 4.87.

Accordingly, in the absence of evidence or argument suggesting the
innitus, other than to obliquely state that the Veteran contends that a higher evaluation is warranted based on the "severity of the symptoms" of his condition. The February 2026 brief does not specify what those symptoms might be or why such symptoms are not adequately addressed by the maximum rating currently in effect.

Accordingly, in the absence of evidence or argument suggesting the maximum schedular rating fails to adequately address the Veteran's symptoms, the Board finds no legal basis upon which to award a higher evaluation for his service-connected tinnitus. Therefore, the Veteran's claim for an increased rating for tinnitus must be denied as a matter of law. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994).

The issue of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 for PTSD is dismissed.

The Board may dismiss any appeal which does not allege a specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. Where the benefit sought by a claimant has already been granted in full, the issue is moot on appeal. See, e.g., Henderson v. West, 11 Vet. App. 245, 246 (1998) (per curiam order).

In the present claim, the Veteran was awarded service connection for PTSD in a June 2025 rating decision, effective May 7, 2025. In the November 2025 Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran claimed entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 50 percent for PTSD throughout the appeal period.

(Continued on the next page)

In a subsequent January 2026 rating decision while the issues were pending on appeal, the AOJ granted a higher initial rating of 100 percent for the Veteran's PTSD, effective May 7, 2025. Given that the Veteran's appeal was for a 100 percent rating for PTSD, the AOJ's subsequent grant of a 100 percent rating is a full grant of the benefit the Veteran sought on appeal.

Therefore, there remains no case or controversy regarding the issues of entitlement to a higher initial rating than 50 percent for PTSD and the matter is dismissed as moot. See Henderson, 11 Vet. App. at 246

S. Merrick

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board E. Barbato.

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer