HEARING LOSS

DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER · 2026 · Case ID: A26038389

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, an Army veteran who served from April 1973 to April 1976, appeals the denial of an increased disability rating for bilateral hearing loss. The veteran sought a rating higher than the 80 percent currently assigned, contending his hearing loss was more severe than reflected by the current evaluation. The Board reviewed two VA examinations from March 2024 and July 2024, along with a private audiology examination from August 2023. The March 2024 VA exam indicated severe hearing loss warranting an 80 percent rating, while the July 2024 VA exam indicated less severe hearing loss warranting only a 10 percent rating. The private audiology exam was deemed inadequate by the Board because it did not use the required Maryland CNC test for speech discrimination. The Board concluded that the evidence persuasively weighed against a rating higher than 80 percent for either appeal period, finding the audiometric results from the March 2024 exam supported the existing 80 percent rating. The Board also considered and denied entitlement to special monthly compensation for deafness, as the veteran's hearing loss did not meet the criteria for the highest rating evaluation. Therefore, the appeal for an increased rating was denied.

Rationale

March 2024 VA exam indicated severe hearing loss warranting 80% rating.; July 2024 VA exam indicated less severe hearing loss warranting 10% rating.; Private audiology exam deemed inadequate due to use of incorrect speech discrimination test.

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250212-518052

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26038389
Decision Date: 04/23/26 Archive Date: 04/23/26

DOCKET NO. 250212-518052
DATE: April 23, 2026

ORDER

A disability rating in excess of 80 percent for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

Throughout the periods on appeal, the Veteran's auditory acuity was no worse than Level IX in the right ear and Level XI in the left ear.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 80 percent for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 1973 to April 1976. His decorations include the National Defense Service Medal.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from May 2024 and November 2024 rating decisions issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the May 2024 decision, the RO increased the rating for the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss from 50 percent to 80 percent, effective November 30, 2023. Following the Veteran's filing of an increased rating claim in July 2024, the RO issued the November 2024 rating decision, which continued the 80 percent rating. The Veteran timely appealed the 80 percent rating assigned for his bilateral hearing loss in both the May 2024 and November 2024 rating decisions by filing a VA Form 10182 (Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement)) on February 12, 2025, requesting direct review of the evidence considered by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.201, 20.202(b)(1).

Under the direct review option, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of issuance of the respective AOJ rating decisions on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. The Board cannot consider evidence submitted after those decisions were promulgated.

If evidence was associated with the claims file during a period of time when additional evidence was not allowed, the Board has not considered it in its decision on the Veteran's claims. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was added to the claims file that the Board could not consider, he may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify that evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim(s), 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 the Veteran listed many issues on his February 12, 2025 VA Form 10182. However, only 6 of the 40 listed issues are issues that were not already listed in prior VA Forms 10182, to include those filed on December 19, 2023, May 14, 2024, December 3, 2024, January 18, 2025, and February 3, 2025. Furthermore, of the 6 non-duplicative issues, the February 12, 2025 VA Form 10182 is untimely as to 2 of them (entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss, and entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent for bilateral hearing loss), inasmuch as those 2 issues were adjudicated in November 2020 and April 2023, respectively, well more than a year prior to the receipt of the February 12, 2025 VA Form 10182, and no good cause for the untimely filing has been demonstrated. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.203. Additionally, 2 of the issues listed in the February 12, 2025 VA Form 10182 as being on appeal from a January 2025 rating decision (entitlement to compensation for a chronic skin condition and entitlement to compensation for hypertension/high blood pressure) were not actually adjudicated in the January 2025 rating decision; rather adjudication of those issues was deferred at that time. The issues were later adjudicated in a February 2025 rating decision, and
well more than a year prior to the receipt of the February 12, 2025 VA Form 10182, and no good cause for the untimely filing has been demonstrated. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.203. Additionally, 2 of the issues listed in the February 12, 2025 VA Form 10182 as being on appeal from a January 2025 rating decision (entitlement to compensation for a chronic skin condition and entitlement to compensation for hypertension/high blood pressure) were not actually adjudicated in the January 2025 rating decision; rather adjudication of those issues was deferred at that time. The issues were later adjudicated in a February 2025 rating decision, and were then appealed in the VA Form 10182 that was filed on February 3, 2025. As such, those issues are also not properly before the Board in the present appeal stream.

As a final introductory matter, the Board notes that, in addition to the present appeal, other issues are pending before the Board in separate appeal streams under the Appeals Modernization Act. Those issues will be addressed in separate Board decisions, if otherwise in order, in accordance with their place on the Board's docket.

A disability rating in excess of 80 percent for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

The Veteran seeks a higher rating for his bilateral hearing loss disability as it relates to the appeal periods pertinent to both the May 2024 and November 2024 rating decisions. He maintains, in essence, that the currently assigned 80 percent rating does not adequately reflect the severity of his disability. See April 2025 representative statement (asserting that the Veteran "contends that his hearing loss is more severe than an 80 percent evaluation.").

Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings, which is in turn based on the average impairment of earning capacity caused by a given disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the evaluations to be assigned to the various disabilities.

If there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. If different disability ratings are warranted for different periods of time over the life of a claim, "staged" ratings may be assigned. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007); Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 125-26 (1999).

Hearing loss normally is rated on the basis of controlled speech discrimination (Maryland CNC) tests, together with the results of puretone audiometry tests. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. Ordinarily, the results of these tests are charted on Table VI, as set out in the Rating Schedule, to determine the appropriate Roman numeral designation (I through XI) to be assigned for the hearing impairment in each ear. These numeric designations are then charted on Table VII to determine the rating to be assigned. Id.; see, e.g., Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1992) (indicating that evaluations of hearing loss are determined by a mechanical application of the rating schedule).

However, not all patterns of hearing loss are rated in this manner. For example, if the puretone threshold at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz is 55 decibels or more, the Roman numeral designation for that ear is taken from either Table VI or VIa, whichever results in the higher numeral. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(a). See also 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85(c) and 4.86(b) (indicating that alternative methodologies also apply when the examiner certifies that use of the speech discrimination test is not appropriate or when the puretone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz).

In March 2024, the Veteran was examined in connection with his claim for an increased rating. His puretone thresholds, in decibels, and Maryland CNC speech recognition scores, were as follows:

HERTZ

1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg CNC

RIGHT 70 80 85 95 82.5 44

LEFT 85 95 100 100+ 95+ 24

Under
methodologies also apply when the examiner certifies that use of the speech discrimination test is not appropriate or when the puretone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz).

In March 2024, the Veteran was examined in connection with his claim for an increased rating. His puretone thresholds, in decibels, and Maryland CNC speech recognition scores, were as follows:

HERTZ

1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg CNC

RIGHT 70 80 85 95 82.5 44

LEFT 85 95 100 100+ 95+ 24

Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 and Table VI, these results correspond to Level IX acuity for the right ear and Level XI acuity for the left ear; which, in turn, warrants an 80 percent rating under Table VII.

Because an exceptional pattern of hearing impairment was shown in both ears pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(a), the Board has also considered the results with application of Table VIa. Application of that Table yields a Level VII acuity in the right ear, which is less than the Level IX acuity derived from Table VI. As to the left ear, the analysis is a bit more ambiguous, inasmuch as the puretone average in that ear was "95+" (i.e., something more than 95 decibels). However, even assuming that the Veteran had Level XI acuity in the left ear (the worst possible numeric designation), those results would warrant no more than an 80 percent rating under Table VII.

With respect to the evidentiary period for consideration in conjunction with the November 2024 rating decision only, the Veteran underwent another VA examination in July 2024. At that time, his puretone thresholds, in decibels, and Maryland CNC speech recognition scores, were as follows:

HERTZ

1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg CNC

RIGHT 80 90 90 90 87.5 94

LEFT 85 85 90 95 88.75 80

Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 and Table VI, these results correspond to Level III acuity for the right ear and Level V acuity for the left ear; which, in turn, warrants only a 10 percent rating under Table VII.

Again, because an exceptional pattern of hearing impairment was shown in both ears pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(a), the Board has also considered the results with application of Table VIa. Application of that Table yields Level VIII acuity in both ears; which, in turn, warrants only a 50 percent rating under Table VII.

In addition to the two VA examinations referenced above, the Board recognizes that the Veteran underwent a private audiology examination in August 2023, obtained by VA referral through the Community Care program, just a few months prior to the Veteran's filing of a notice of intent to file a claim in November 2023. At that time, his puretone thresholds, in decibels, and speech recognition scores, were as follows:?

HERTZ

1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg NU-6

RIGHT 35 45 50 60 47.5 76

LEFT 45 50 45 60 50 76

However, inasmuch as the August 2023 audiologist used the "NU-6" word list, rather than the Maryland CNC test, to assess speech discrimination, the examination report does not meet the criteria for an examination for hearing impairment for VA purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a) ("An examination for hearing impairment for VA purposes must be conducted by a state-licensed audiologist and must include a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC) and a puretone audiometry test."). As such, it is inadequate for rating purposes.

In light of the foregoing, it is the Board's conclusion that the evidence is persuasively against the Veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 80 percent for bilateral hearing loss for either of the periods here on appeal. As set forth above, the only available and legally adequate audiometric reports demonstrate entitlement to nothing more than an 80 percent rating.

In arriving at this conclusion, the Board has considered the Veteran's lay assertions and other evidence regarding the functional impact of his diminished hearing. See Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447, 455 (2007). Both the March 2024 and July 2024 VA examiners acknowledged that the Veteran's hearing loss impacted ordinary conditions of daily life, including his ability to work. The March 2024 VA examiner stated, "The veteran reported having to ask for repetitions and frequently lip reading. He struggles in background noise." And as pertinent to the appeal period associated with the November 2024 rating decision, the July 2024 VA examiner explained, "Veteran has hearing aids. Veteran reports difficulty understanding conversation. Veteran reports hearing has declined."

However, as noted, the assignment of disability ratings for hearing impairment is derived by a mechanical application of the Rating Schedule to the numeric designations based on audiometric test results. See Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1992). The rating criteria for hearing loss contemplate functional effects such as difficulty understanding speech, as this is precisely the type of effect that VA's audiometric tests are designed to measure. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017). A higher rating can be awarded only when loss of hearing has reached a specified measurable level

Finally, the Board has also considered potential entitlement to special monthly compensation based upon deafness under 38 C.F.R. § 3.350. However, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(c)(5), deafness is held to exist where VA examination shows bilateral hearing loss is equal to or greater than the minimum bilateral hearing loss required for a maximum rating evaluation under the rating schedule. As the Veteran's hearing loss is rated at only 80 percent, and the criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 authorize an even higher, 100 percent rating for impaired hearing, special monthly compensation is not warranted.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the assignment of a disability rating in excess of 80 for the Veteran's hearing loss during either of the periods here on appeal. As such, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.3; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The appeal must be denied.

DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board K. Gielow, 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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer