Citation NR: 9633051	
Decision Date: 11/21/96		Archive Date: 12/02/96
DOCKET NO.  94-38 241	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Jackson, 
Mississippi


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased evaluation for hearing loss 
disability of the right ear, currently evaluated as 10 
percent disabling.



WITNESS AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL

Appellant



ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Julia M. Beach, Associate Counsel





INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from February 1968 to February 
1978.  The claims folder reflects 13 years of additional 
unverified active service, and the veteran has indicated that 
he entered active duty in December 1954.

This matter came before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals 
(Board) on appeal from a March 1994 rating decision of the 
Jackson, Mississippi, Regional Office (RO) which confirmed 
and continued a 10 percent evaluation for hearing loss 
disability of the right ear.  The veteran testified before a 
hearing officer at the RO in June 1994.  This case was 
previously before the Board in May 1996 when it was remanded.  
In September 1996, the veteran testified before a Member of 
the Board at the RO.  He is not represented in his appeal.  

A preliminary review of the record does not indicate that the 
RO expressly considered referral of the veteran’s claims to 
the Chief Benefits Director or the Director, Compensation and 
Pension Service for assignment of an extraschedular rating 
under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b) (1995).  In 
order to accord justice in an exceptional case where the 
schedular standards are found to be inadequate, the 
regulation provides that the field station is authorized to 
refer the case to the Chief Benefits Director or the 
Director, Compensation and Pension Service for assignment of 
an extraschedular evaluation commensurate with average 
earning capacity impairment.  The governing criteria for such 
an award is a finding that the case presents such an 
exceptional or unusual disability picture with such related 
factors as marked interference with employment or frequent 
periods of hospitalization as to render impractical the 
application of the regular schedular standards.  The United 
States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that the 
Board is precluded by regulation from assigning an 
extraschedular rating under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b) in the first 
instance.  However, the Board is not precluded from raising 
the question and, in fact, is obligated to liberally read all 
documents and oral testimony of record and identify all 
potential theories of entitlement to a benefit under the 
applicable law and regulations.  Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 
88 (1996).  The Court has held further that the Board must 
address referral under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b) only where 
circumstances are presented which the Director of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)’s Compensation and 
Pension Service might consider exceptional or unusual.  
Shipwash v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 218, 227 (1995).  The Board 
concludes that there is no basis for further action on this 
question.  VAOPGCPREC 6-96 (1996).


CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL

The veteran asserts that he is entitled to an increased 
evaluation for his hearing loss disability of the right ear 
as it is more disabling than the current evaluation reflects.  
He asserts that he is unable to continue in his trained 
career of teaching due to his hearing loss.  


DECISION OF THE BOARD

The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. 
§ 7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 1995), has reviewed and considered 
all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's 
claims file.  Based on its review of the relevant evidence in 
this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is 
the decision of the Board that the preponderance of the 
evidence is against the veteran’s claim for an increased 
evaluation for hearing loss disability of the right ear.


FINDINGS OF FACT

1.  All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable 
disposition of the veteran’s appeal has been obtained.

2.  Hearing loss disability is manifested by an average pure 
tone threshold at 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 hertz of 
105+ decibels in the right ear and speech discrimination 
ability is 2 percent in the right ear.  The left ear is not 
totally deaf.


CONCLUSION OF LAW

Hearing loss disability of the right ear is no more than 10 
percent disabling.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 1160, 5107 
(West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.383, 4.7, 4.85, Part 4, 
Diagnostic Code 6101 (1995).


REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

Initially, it is necessary to determine if the veteran has 
submitted a well-grounded claim within the meaning of 38 
U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991), and if so, whether the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has properly assisted him 
in the development of his claim.  A review of the record 
indicates that the veteran’s claim is plausible and that all 
relevant facts have been properly developed.  Pursuant to the 
Board’s remand and the veteran’s request, the veteran was 
scheduled for a hearing before a Member of the Board at the 
RO. 

Disability ratings are based, as far as practicable, upon the 
average impairment of earning capacity resulting from the 
disability as reflected by the evidence.  38 U.S.C.A. § 1155.  
The average impairment is set forth in the VA’s Schedule for 
Rating Disabilities (Schedule), codified in 38 C.F.R. Part 4 
(1995), which includes diagnostic codes which represent 
particular disabilities.  The pertinent diagnostic code and 
provisions will be discussed below as appropriate.

Although the VA must consider the entire record, the most 
pertinent evidence is those documents created in proximity to 
the recent claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5110 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. 
§ 4.1 (1995).

Disability evaluations of unilateral defective hearing range 
from noncompensable to 10 percent based on organic impairment 
of hearing acuity as measured by the results of controlled 
speech discrimination tests together with the average hearing 
threshold level as measured by a puretone audiometry test in 
the frequencies of 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 cycles per 
second.  To evaluate the degree of disability for service-
connected defective hearing, the Schedule establishes 11 
auditory acuity levels designated from Level I for 
essentially normal auditory acuity to Level XI for profound 
deafness.  38 C.F.R. Part 4, § 4.85, Diagnostic Codes 6100-
6110 (1995).  Disability ratings for hearing impairment are 
derived by a mechanical application of the numeric 
designations assigned after audiometric evaluations are 
rendered.  Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 345 (1992).

Service connection for hearing loss of the right ear was 
established in August 1978 and a 10 percent evaluation was 
assigned, effective from March 1, 1978.  The grant of service 
connection was based upon a finding of aggravation of pre-
existing hearing loss disability of the right ear during 
service.  The left ear is not service connected.

Medical records from Keesler Air Force Base, dating from 
March 1991 to March 1993, indicate that in April 1991, the 
veteran had normal hearing in the left ear and moderate 
severe conductive hearing loss in the right ear.  It was 
noted that the veteran was fitted for a hearing aid.

Medical records from Ochsner Clinic, dating from March 1993 
to April 1993, reveal diagnoses of right profound 
sensorineural hearing loss.  

On the authorized audiological evaluation in March 1994, pure 
tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows:




HERTZ




500
1000
2000
3000
4000

RIGHT

105+
105+
105+
105+

LEFT

15
30
35
55


The average pure tone threshold at 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 and 
4,000 hertz was 105+ decibels in the right ear and 33 
decibels in the left ear.  Speech audiometry revealed speech 
recognition ability of 2 percent in the right ear and of 90 
percent in the left ear.  

The veteran testified before a hearing officer at the RO in 
June 1994.  He testified that:  he is a teacher but is unable 
to distinguish words and cannot follow his chosen profession; 
he wears a hearing aid but it makes the voices sound tinny; 
he needs to be looking at someone when listening to them; he 
does not have a problem with telephone conversation as long 
as there is no background noise; and when there is any noise 
at all on his left side, then his hearing aid does not 
function.

At a VA examination in July 1994, the veteran reported 
minimal if any hearing in the right ear.  It was noted that 
the veteran had undergone revision and total obliteration of 
the mastoid cavity and external canal on the right ear.  The 
diagnosis was marked loss of hearing in the right ear.  There 
was no active infection.

The veteran testified before a Member of the Board at the RO 
in September 1996.  He testified that:  he had surgery on his 
right ear which totally closed it off; his right ear is now 
totally useless; when he is looking straight at someone, he 
can do some lip work and comprehend what is said; however, 
with background noise, he is totally lost; he believes he is 
entitled to a 30 percent evaluation since his ability to hear 
and understand is diminished with background noise; and he 
has relatively normal hearing in the left ear.  

It should be noted that the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1160 
(West 1991) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.383 (1995) reflect special 
consideration is to be accorded for cases involving loss of 
paired organs or extremities.  As applied to this case, 
absent total deafness of the nonservice-connected left ear, 
the implication is that the left ear will be viewed as having 
normal hearing.  See also 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 (1995), which 
specifies that “the use of manifestations not resulting from 
service-connected disease or injury in establishing the 
service-connected evaluation...(is) to be avoided.”

The Board accepts the veteran’s testimony as an accurate 
report of current symptoms.  In addition, a professional 
described the condition as profound.  However, the Court has 
recognized that the evaluation of hearing loss disability is 
a mechanical function.  Clearly, the most probative evidence 
consists of the audiometric results, particularly from the 
VA.  (In this regard, the VA puretone thresholds were 
comparable to the private results.)

The Board has weighed the probative evidence of record.  The 
veteran exhibits Level XI hearing in the right ear.  This 
reflects a profound loss and is consistent with his 
testimony.  His nonservice-connected left ear exhibits Level 
I (and is considered normal for rating purposes since it is 
not service-connected).  The fact that the veteran may have 
been issued a hearing aid is considered in the evaluation.  
This degree of hearing impairment equates to a 10 percent 
evaluation.  There is no other basis for a higher evaluation.  
Even when we accept the veteran’s testimony, there is no 
basis upon which to assign a higher evaluation.  Furthermore, 
there is no indication of active infection or any other 
condition that would warrant a separate rating.  Accordingly, 
an increased evaluation for hearing loss of the right ear is 
not warranted.  


ORDER

Entitlement to an increased evaluation for hearing loss 
disability of the right ear is denied.


		
	H. N. SCHWARTZ
	Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures 
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, 741 
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to 
be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a 
determination.  This proceeding has been assigned to an 
individual member of the Board.

NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS:  Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 
1991 &  Supp. 1995), a decision of the Board of Veterans' 
Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, 
sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of 
Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of 
notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of 
Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board 
was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or 
after November 18, 1988.  Veterans' Judicial Review Act, 
Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402, 102 Stat. 4105, 4122 (1988).  The 
date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes 
the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you 
have received is your notice of the action taken on your 
appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
- 2 -