HEARING LOSS

SHAUN S. SPERANZA · 2026 · Case ID: A26040880

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served and Coast Guard between June 1992 and August 1997, appeals the denial of a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. The Board of Veterans' Appeals reviewed the evidence of record at the time of the April 2025 agency of original jurisdiction decision. The veteran sought a compensable rating for service-connected bilateral hearing loss, which is evaluated based on audiometric testing and speech discrimination scores. An April 2025 VA examination revealed the veteran's hearing loss, with specific Maryland CNC Word List scores and pure tone thresholds documented. Applying these results to the rating schedule (38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VII), the findings equated to a 0 percent disability rating under Diagnostic Code 6100, as an exceptional pattern of hearing impairment was not shown. The Board noted the veteran's lay evidence describing trouble hearing in background noise, but explained that disability ratings for hearing loss are mechanically applied to audiometric results. The Board found the most probative evidence weighed against a compensable rating, and therefore, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule did not apply. The Board denied entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss.

Rationale

VA examination findings applied to rating schedule; Results yielded 0 percent disability rating; Exceptional pattern of hearing impairment not shown

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Diagnostic Code

6100

Docket No.

250510-545478

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040880
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250510-545478
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

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

FINDING OF FACT

Veteran's bilateral hearing has been manifested by hearing acuity of no worse than Level II in the right ear and no worse than Level I in the left ear.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for a compensable rating 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 in the Army from June 1992 to October 1992 and January 1993 to July 1997, and in the Coast Guard from July 1997 to August 1997.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2025 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office, an Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).

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

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 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 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.

1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss

The Veteran seeks a compensable rating for the service-connected bilateral hearing loss. See June 2025 Appellate Brief.

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). 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100.

To evaluate the degree of disability from bilateral service-connected hearing loss, the schedule establishes 11 auditory hearing acuity levels designated from Level I for essentially normal hearing acuity through Level XI for profound deafness. 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) is 55 decibels or more. 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. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(b).

An April 2025 VA examination revealed that the Veteran reported progressively worsened hearing loss with functional loss described as trouble hearing in all situations that affects communication with his family, and inability to hear conversations in background noise. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10; Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447 (2007). The Veteran's Maryland CNC Word List speech recognition score and pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows:

HERTZ

1000 2000
VI or Table VIA, whichever results in the higher numeral, and that numeral will then be elevated to the next higher numeral. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(b).

HERTZ

1000 2000 3000 4000 Avg CNC

RIGHT 20 50 80 80 57.5 96

LEFT 20 40 70 70 50 96

Applying the results to Table VI, the findings yield a numeric designation of Level II in the right ear and Level I in the left ear. Entering the resulting bilateral numeric designation of Level II for the right ear and Level I for the left ear to 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VII, equates to a 0 percent disability rating under Diagnostic Code 6100. An exceptional pattern of hearing impairment under 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 was not shown.

The Veteran has not provided other competent evidence to include audiometric findings in support of the claim.

The Board considered the lay evidence of record when adjudicating this claim, including trouble hearing in all situations and inability to hear conversations in background noise. The Veteran is competent to report difficulty 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).

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 complaints of reduced hearing acuity and clarity are contemplated by the rating assigned. See Rossy v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 142, 145 (2017).

Accordingly, the most probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim of entitlement to a compensable rating for hearing loss. As the most probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against a compensable rating, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

SHAUN S. SPERANZA

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Bobb, Jessica R.

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