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

Citation Nr: A26069984 Decision Date: 07/30/26 Archive Date: 07/30/26 DOCKET NO. 220523-245344 DATE: July 30, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss manifested no worse than Level I hearing in the left and right ears. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss have not been met.?38 U.S.C. § 5107?(b);?38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.383, 3.385, 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1975 to January 1978. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2021 rating decision. The Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) in May 2022 and elected to have a hearing with a Veterans Law Judge. A Board hearing was scheduled to be held on November 20, 2025. The Veteran's representative withdrew the request for a hearing in a letter received by the Board on October 31, 2025. In the event that a hearing request is withdrawn, the Board's decision will be based on a review of evidence of record at the time of the decision on appeal, and any evidence submitted by the Veteran and his representative within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal.?38?C.F.R. §?20.302 (b). The Board may consider the evidence of record when the decision on appeal was issued on September 14, 2021, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran and his representative in the 90 days following October 21, 2025. The 90-day evidence submission period expired on January 29, 2026. The Veteran's representative submitted additional evidence outside the period allowed for evidence submission, including additional VA medical records. This evidence was received in February 2026, after the period allowed for evidence submission expired on January 29, 2026. To the extent this evidence relates to the Veteran's claims at issue in this appeal, the Board cannot consider this new evidence, and should the Veteran wish for VA to review additional evidence relating to these claims, he may file a Supplemental Claim and submit or identify new and relevant evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. Nevertheless, to the extent the evidence relates to the Veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, the Board is remanding that claim, and the Agency of Original Jurisdiction will issue a new decision that considers all additional evidence associated with the claims file that this decision cannot consider. Disability Ratings Disability ratings are?determined?by applying the criteria?set forth in?the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), found in?38 C.F.R., Part 4. The ratings are intended to compensate impairment in earning capacity due to a service-connected disease or?injury. 38?U.S.C. § 1155;?38 C.F.R. § 4.1. The determination of whether an increased evaluation is?warranted?is based on review of the entire evidence of record and the application of all pertinent regulations. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App.?589 (1991).? When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). If the evidence for and against a claim is an equipoise, the claim will be granted. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability is resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 1. Bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran seeks an increased rating for his bilateral hearing loss disability, which is currently assigned a 0 percent rating. When 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. 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 and as measured by Puretone audiometric tests in the frequencies 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 cycles per second. 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 (Maryland CNC) together with the results of a Puretone audiometry test. The vertical lines in Table VI (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 (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. The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 (a) apply to exceptional patterns of hearing loss and provide that when the Puretone thresholds 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. 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. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 (b). After reviewing the record, the Board finds a compensable rating for the Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. The most probative evidence shows the Veteran's hearing manifests in Level I hearing in the left and right ears, which corresponds with a 0 percent rating under?38 C.F.R. § 4.85?and Table VII. The Veteran filed his claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss disabilities in July 2021, and included private audiology records completed in September 2019. The audiogram results show Puretone thresholds, in decibels, as follows:???????? ??????????? ???????? ???????? HERTZ??????? ???????? ???????? ???????? 1000?? 2000?? 3000?? 4000?? RIGHT??????? 30 25 30 40 LEFT?? 25 30 25 40 ? The examination revealed the average hearing thresholds at the 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 frequencies was 31.25 decibels for the right ear and 30 decibels for the left ear. Speech discrimination scores using the NU-6 word list were 100 percent for both ears. The Veteran had a VA audiology consultation in May 2020 and reported that his hearing loss caused difficulties communicating. The audiogram results show Puretone thresholds, in decibels, as follows: ??????????? ???????? ???????? HERTZ??????? ???????? ???????? ???????? 1000?? 2000?? 3000?? 4000?? RIGHT??????? 30 25 30 40 LEFT?? 20 30 25 40 ? The examination revealed the average hearing thresholds at the 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 frequencies was 31.25 decibels for the right ear and 28.75 decibels for the left ear. Speech discrimination scores using the W-22 test were 100 percent for both ears. Neither the September 2019 private test results nor the May 2020 VA test results are adequate to rate the Veteran's hearing loss disabilities. 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. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 (a). The private audiogram did not meet all of these standards. Both audiograms were completed by an audiologist. However, the Maryland CNC speech discrimination test was not used, and the speech recognition scores are not adequate to rate the Veteran's hearing loss disabilities. The Veteran was provided a VA hearing loss examination in September 2021. He reported that it was very difficult to hear people who were wearing masks and that he had difficulties hearing his wife, and that he could not wear hearing aids. The Board notes the September 2021 VA examination was provided during the COVID-19 pandemic. The audiogram results show Puretone thresholds, in decibels, as follows:???????? ??????????? ???????? ???????? HERTZ??????? ???????? ???????? ???????? 1000?? 2000?? 3000?? 4000?? RIGHT??????? 35 35 40 50 LEFT?? 30 35 30 45 ? The examination revealed the average hearing thresholds at the 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 frequencies was 40 decibels for the right ear and 35 decibels for the left ear. Speech discrimination scores using the Maryland CNC word test were 94 percent for both ears. The examiner found the Puretone audiogram results were valid for rating purposes, and that the use of speech discrimination scores were?appropriate for?the Veteran. Using the criteria in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 and Table VI, the September 2021 evaluation shows the Veteran had a numeric designation of Level I in his right ear and Level I in his left ear, which corresponds to a 0 percent rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VII.? The Board finds the September 2021 examination adequate and?the findings constitute highly probative evidence weighing?substantially against?the claim. The Veteran's hearing was evaluated in compliance with VA regulations and statutes. Puretone and speech recognition testing was conducted, and the results were obtained and recorded. The examiner determined the Puretone test results were valid for rating purposes, and that the speech discrimination scores were considered?appropriate for?the Veteran. The September 2021 VA also contains an adequate speech recognition scores in the claims file. The September 2021 test also showed the worst Puretone thresholds of each available audiogram. The probative and persuasive evidence consists of the September 2021 examination, which demonstrates the Veteran experienced Level I hearing, at worst, in both ears, which corresponds to a 0 percent evaluation.? The probative evidence does not suggest the Veteran has an exceptional pattern of hearing loss. As a result, 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 (a) is not applicable as the examinations revealed the Puretone thresholds in the right and left ears at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz were not all 55 decibels or more. In addition,?38 C.F.R. § 4.86?(b) also does not apply as the Puretone threshold in either ear was not 70 decibels at 2000 Hertz.? In an October 2025 statement submitted to the Board within the 90-day evidence submission period, the Veteran reported that his hearing has continued to worsen with difficulties engaging in conversation, increased problems with conversation if a person is not looking at him when speaking, and that he asks for repetition. He also reported that his service-connected tinnitus made his hearing problems worse, and that he was unable to use his hearing aids. The Veteran's representative requested that the Board remand this matter to provide a new VA examination to determine the severity of the Veteran's hearing loss considering these symptoms. The Veteran is competent to report impairments caused by his hearing loss. Nevertheless, disability ratings for hearing loss are derived by mechanically applying numeric designations assigned following adequate Puretone and speech discrimination testing. Lendenmann, 3 Vet. App. at 349. The VA examination includes the only fully adequate Puretone and speech discrimination testing and show Level I hearing in both of the Veteran's ears, which coincides with a 0 percent rating. While the Veteran has reported difficulty understanding speech that is worsened by his tinnitus and that he cannot use hearing aids, these difficulties hearing are contemplated by the schedular rating criteria. Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017). Assignment of the schedular disability ratings for hearing impairment is derived by a mechanical application of the rating schedule to the numeric designation assigned after valid audiometry results are obtained. The adequate hearing loss examination results do not warrant an increased rating. Considering the foregoing, the evidence weighs persuasively against assigning a compensable rating for the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. The benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application and a compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. Lynch, 21 F.4th 776.? REASONS FOR REMAND This appeal is reviewed under the Appeals Modernization Act. When a pre-decisional duty-to-assist error occurs, the Board may have those errors corrected before deciding the claims on appeal. The Board may also remand for correction of any other error by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction in satisfying a regulatory or statutory duty if correction of the error would have a reasonable possibility of aiding in substantiating a Veteran's claim. 38 C.F.R. § 20.802. 2. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran seeks service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, which he initially claimed as secondary to service-connected hepatitic C. The Veteran also argues he has an acquired psychiatric disorder, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), that is directly due to service. The claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder must be remanded to correct a pre-decisional duty to assist error and conduct additional development to attempt to corroborate in-service stressors potentially related to PTSD. The Veteran must also be provided VA examinations and medical opinions to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed psychiatric disorders. Service connection was previously denied for an unspecified anxiety disorder in a November 2016 rating decision. The Veteran initially claimed service connection for any acquired psychiatric disorder as secondary to service-connected hepatitis C. During a September 2016 VA psychiatric examination, the Veteran attributed his symptoms to in-service incidents when a soldier had been run over by a tank during a training exercise in Texas and a civilian car being run over by a tank while he was stationed in Germany. The examiner diagnosed an unspecified anxiety disorder, and did provide a negative opinion that the anxiety disorder was less likely than not proximately due to or the result of service-connected hepatitis C. VA treatment records at the time indicated the Veteran's anxiety was related to legal troubles and substance abuse disorders. The Veteran's initial claim was denied in a November 2016 rating decision. The Veteran submitted his Supplemental Claim seeking service connection for any acquired psychiatric disorder in July 2021. More recent VA treatment records show the Veteran was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and PTSD in July 2021 after reporting that he had witnessed lose a finger in 1976 or 1977 during a training exercise and been covered in the soldier's blood. The Veteran has also reported finding another soldier who had died during service in Germany in 1976 and 1977. The Veteran and his representative generally argue service connection for PTSD is warranted based on these stressors, or that service connection is warranted for other psychiatric disorders including major depressive disorder and unspecified anxiety as secondary to service-connected disabilities. Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition?in accordance with?38?C.F.R. §?4.125 (a); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38?C.F.R. §?3.304 (f); 38?C.F.R. §?4.125. The Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD in July 2021. However, a Veteran's lay statements alone cannot?establish?the occurrence of a stressor unless the PTSD claim is based on an exception in?38?C.F.R. §?3.304?(f). The specific types of stressors listed in section 3.304 (f) are not claimed here, and cannot be used to grant service connection for PTSD at this time. However, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction did not attempt to assist the Veteran to verify most of the reported stressors before the rating decision on appeal was issued. The September 2016 examination and later VA treatment records detail the stressors events with sufficient detail, but no further development was undertaken to verify whether these incidents occurred before the rating decision on appeal was issued. Once this additional development is completed, the Veteran should be provided a VA examination and medical opinions to determine the etiology of his psychiatric disorders. Considering the Veteran's diagnosis for PTSD and major depressive disorder in July 2021, the September 2016 VA examination is no longer adequate to assess the nature and etiology of the Veteran's current psychiatric disorders. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. After providing the Veteran another opportunity to provide additional information and evidence, attempt to corroborate the Veteran's claimed in-service stressors, to include but not limited to a tank breach accident the Veteran has reported occurred during a period of training at Fort Drum in 1992 or 1993. Contact the appropriate government records repositories and service department records depositories to attempt to verify the claims. Documentation of any inquiries made and responses received shall be associated with the claims file. If the Veteran's in-service stressors cannot be verified, document the attempts that were made to corroborate the claimed stressor and explain in writing why further attempts to locate or obtain corroborating government records would be futile. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction shall then: (a) notify the Veteran of the specific records that it is unable to obtain; (b) explain the efforts VA has made to obtain that evidence; and (c) describe any further action it will take with respect to the claim. The Veteran shall then be given an opportunity to respond. 2. After the aforementioned development is complete, schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination to determine the etiology of his claimed psychiatric disorders. After interviewing and examining the Veteran and reviewing the claims file, the examiner must first identify all current psychiatric diagnoses. Thereafter, the examiner must provide the following opinions: a. Is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that any psychiatric disorder, including but not limited to PTSD, was incurred in or is otherwise related to the Veteran's service? b. Is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that any psychiatric disorder is due to, the result of, or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected disabilities? Separate opinions addressing causation and aggravation are required. The examiner is reminded that secondary service connection is warranted where a nonservice-connected disability would have been less severe "but-for" a service-connected disability, either because there is an etiological link (to include worsening of functionality) between the two, or because the service-connected disability resulted in the inability to treat the non-service-connected disability. SHAUN S. SPERANZA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Morse, S. 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.