HEARING LOSS

T. MAINELLI · 2026 · Case ID: A26040766

DENIED

Summary

The Veteran served from February 1985 to January 1998, July 2003 to June 2004, and August 2005 to February 2006. The Veteran appealed the denial of a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. The appeal was filed under the Appeals Modernization Act, with the Veteran electing the Direct review docket. The Board reviewed the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction's decision. The relevant regulations for evaluating hearing impairment, including Tables VI, VIA, and VII of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, and the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 for exceptional patterns, were considered. VA treatment records from March 2022, 2023, and February 2024 showed no changes to the Veteran's hearing. Two VA audiological examinations, in March and April 2024, were conducted. Both examinations indicated puretone threshold averages and speech discrimination scores that, when applied to Table VI and VII, resulted in a noncompensable rating for the Veteran's bilateral hearing impairment. The Board found no exceptional pattern of hearing impairment under § 4.86. The Veteran's reported functional impairments, such as difficulty understanding speech and lip-reading, are contemplated within the rating criteria. The persuasive evidence was against a compensable disability rating. Therefore, the Board denied entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss.

Rationale

Service treatment records and VA treatment records showed no changes to Veteran's hearing.; March 2024 VA audiological exam: Right ear avg 36.25 dB, Left ear avg 42.50 dB; Maryland CNC scores 98% both ears; Table VI/VII rating noncompensable.; April 2024 VA audiological exam: Right ear avg 37.50 dB, Left ear avg 46.25 dB; Maryland CNC scores 98% right, 100% left; Table VI/VII rating noncompensable.; No exceptional pattern of hearing impairment under 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 found.; Persuasive evidence is against a compensable disability rating.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250416-534012

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040766
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250416-534012
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

During the relevant time period, the Veteran demonstrated at worst level I hearing impairment in both ears.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.321, 4.1 - 4.14, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code (DC) 6100.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1985 to January 1998, July 2003 to June 2004, and August 2005 to February 2006.

The rating decision on appeal was issued in June 2024; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. In December 2024, the Veteran timely filed a request for higher level review (HLR). In the March 2025 HLR rating decision, the agency of original jurisdiction found no error in the June 2024 rating decision.

In the April 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, the Appellant elected the Direct review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38?C.F.R. § 20.302

Disability evaluations 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 his symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Schedule). 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1.

Separate diagnostic codes identify various disabilities and the criteria for specific ratings. Relevant regulations do not require that all cases show all findings specified by the Schedule; however, findings sufficient to identify the disease and the resulting disability and, above all, coordination of the rating with impairment of function will be expected in all cases. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.21.

If two disability evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that evaluation. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. After careful consideration of the evidence, any reasonable doubt remaining will be resolved in favor of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3.

In establishing an appropriate initial assignment of a disability rating, the proper scope of evidence includes all medical evidence submitted in support of the veteran's claim. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). In cases where an assigned disability rating has been challenged or appealed, it is possible for a veteran to receive a staged rating. A staged rating is an award of separate percentage evaluations for separate periods, based on the facts found during the appeal period. Id. at 126-28; see also Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007) (in determining the present level of a disability for any increased evaluation claim, the Board must consider staged ratings).

Per 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, 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. Examinations are conducted without the use of hearing aids.

Table VI, "Numeric Designation of Hearing Impairment Based on Puretone Threshold Average and Speech Discrimination," is used to determine a Roman numeral designation (I through XI) for hearing impairment based on a combination of the percent of speech discrimination (horizontal rows) and the puretone threshold average (vertical columns). The Roman numeral designation is located at the
veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3.

Table VIA, "Numeric Designation of Hearing Impairment Based Only on Puretone Threshold Average," is used to determine a Roman numeral designation (I through XI) for hearing impairment based only on the puretone threshold average. Table VIA will be used when the examiner certifies that use of the speech discrimination test is not appropriate because of language difficulties, inconsistent speech discrimination scores, etc., or when indicated under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.86.

"Puretone threshold average," as used in Tables VI and VIA, is the sum of the puretone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz, divided by four. This average is used in all cases (including those in 38 C.F.R. § 4.86) to determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from Table VI or VIA.

Table VII, "Percentage Evaluations for Hearing Impairment," is used to determine the percentage evaluation by combining the Roman numeral designations for hearing impairment of each ear. The horizontal rows represent the ear having the better hearing and the vertical columns the ear having the poorer hearing. The percentage evaluation is located at the point where the row and column intersect.

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. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(f).

In addition, 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 applies to exceptional patterns of hearing impairment. Under its provisions, when the pure tone 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. When the 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. That numeral will then be elevated to the next higher numeral. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86.

The Board further notes the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that, "in addition to dictating objective test results, a VA audiologist must fully describe the functional effects caused by a hearing disability in his or her final report." Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447, 455 (2007).

During the time period on appeal, VA treatment records indicate that there were no changes to the Veteran's hearing. See March 2022, March 2023, and February 2024 VA Treatment Records.

Additionally, during the time period on appeal, the claims file contains March 2024 and April 2024 VA audiological evaluations. At the March 2024 audiological examination in the VA clinic setting, puretone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows:

HERTZ

1000 B

2000 C

3000 D

4000 A+B+C+D

AVG.

RIGHT 25 35 45 45 36.25

LEFT 25 40 55 50 42.50

The puretone threshold average was 36.25 decibels in the right ear and 42.50 in the left ear. The Maryland CNC controlled speech discrimination test scores were 98 percent in both ears. According to Table VI, the right ear is rated at level I, and the left ear is rated at level I. Applying these results to Table VII, the Veteran's disability is rated as noncompensable. These test results do not show that the Veteran had an exceptional pattern of hearing impairment under

3000 D

4000 A+B+C+D

AVG.

RIGHT 25 35 45 45 36.25

LEFT 25 40 55 50 42.50

At the April 2024 audiological examination in the VA clinic setting, puretone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows:

HERTZ

1000 B

2000 C

3000 D

4000 A+B+C+D

AVG.

RIGHT 30 30 45 45 37.50

LEFT 25 45 60 55 46.25

The puretone threshold average was 37.50 decibels in the right ear and 46.25 in the left ear. The Maryland CNC controlled speech discrimination test scores were 98 percent in the right ear and 100 percent in the left ear. According to Table VI, the right ear is rated at level I, and the left ear is rated at level I. Applying these results to Table VII, the Veteran's disability is rated as noncompensable. These test results do not show that the Veteran had an exceptional pattern of hearing impairment under 38 C.F.R. § 4.86.

In this case, the evidence of record reflects that the right ear is, at worst, rated as level I, and the left ear is, at worst, rated as level I. Applying these results to Table VII, the Veteran's disability is rated as noncompensable. Overall, the persuasive evidence is against a compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss; the appeal is denied.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's reported functional impairments which include difficulty understanding speech, reading lips and having people repeat themselves. The rating criteria contemplate speech reception thresholds and ability to hear spoken words on Maryland CNC testing. The functional impact that the Veteran describes is contemplated by the rating criteria. Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017). The Veteran's main complaint is reduced hearing acuity and clarity, which is wholly contemplated in the rating assigned. See Rossy v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 142, 145 (2017).

T. MAINELLI

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Howell, Chad

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