BVA9503786 DOCKET NO. 93-12 117 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for bilateral hearing loss, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 2. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for healed perforation, left ear drum. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Ronald R. Bosch, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from January 1968 to January 1971. This appeal arose from a March 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The RO denied entitlement to an increased evaluation for bilateral hearing loss, and an increased (compensable) evaluation for healed perforation of the left eardrum. In his substantive appeal, the veteran raised the issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. This issue has neither been prepared nor certified for appellate review. It is indicated in the file the veteran was to be contacted to provide medical evidence in support of this claim; however, it does not appear that he was contacted on this matter. This issue is referred to the RO for appropriate action. The case has been forwarded to the board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) for appellate review. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss has increased in severity, and that he has been advised to purchase a hearing aid. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), 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 grants of an increased evaluation for bilateral defective hearing and an increased (compensable) evaluation for a healed perforation of the left ear drum. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A January 1992 VA audiology examination disclosed that right hearing loss was manifested by 15, 65, 90, and 95 decibels with an average of 66 decibels at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 hertz with a speech recognition ability of 80 percent. 2. A January 1992 VA audiology examination disclosed that left hearing loss was manifested by 25, 70, 90, and 105 decibels with an average of 73 decibels at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 hertz, with a speech recognition ability of 76 percent. 3. A January 1992 VA audiology examination included an otoscopic examination with no showing of any residuals of a perforation of the left ear drum. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The requirements for an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for bilateral defective hearing have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b)(1), 4.7, 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6101 (1994). 2. The requirements for an increased (compensable) evaluation for a healed perforation of the left ear drum have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b)(1), 4.7, 4.87(a), Diagnostic Code 6211. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Initially, the Board finds that the veteran's claims are well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a), in that it is at least plausible that his bilateral hearing loss and healed perforation of the left ear drum have increased in severity. The Board is satisfied that all relevant facts have been properly developed, and that no further assistance to the veteran is required in order to comply with 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). In accordance with 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1 and 4.2, and Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991), the Board has reviewed the service medical records and all other evidence of record pertaining to the history of the veteran's bilateral hearing loss and healed perforation of the left ear drum. The Board has found nothing in the historical record which would lead to a conclusion that the current evidence of record is inadequate for rating purposes. A review of the service medical records discloses that a perforation of the left ear drum was reported in March 1970, and that a high frequency hearing loss bilaterally was reported when the veteran was examined for separation from active service. A healed perforation of the left eardrum was reported when the veteran was examined by VA in April 1971. Certified audiology studies reported by VA in May 1971 show the veteran had pure tone air conduction of 13 decibels with a speech reception threshold of 82 percent in the right ear, and pure tone air conduction of 17 decibels with a speech reception threshold of 84 percent in the left ear. At a January 1992 VA audiology examination, right hearing loss was manifested by 15, 65, 90, and 95 decibels with an average of 66 decibels at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 hertz with a speech recognition ability of 80 percent. Left hearing loss was manifested by 25, 70, 90 and 105 decibels with an average of 73 decibels at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 hertz with a speech recognition ability of 76 percent. An otoscopy was negative for perforation of the left ear drum. The January 1992 VA audiology examination disclosed that right hearing loss was manifested by an average loss of 66 decibels with a speech recognition ability of 80 percent and that left hearing loss was manifested by an average loss of 73 decibels with a speech recognition ability of 76 percent. These audiometric findings result in a numeric designation of IV for each ear on Table VI of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The numeric designations of IV for each ear equate to an evaluation of 10 percent under diagnostic code 6101 on Table VII. The Board has considered the veteran's complaints of worsening hearing impairment; however, an increased evaluation would only be assignable with a demonstration of higher average decibel losses and lower speech recognition ability in each ear. Of course the audiology studies reported by VA earlier in January 1992 are not for consideration as the VA Chief, Audiology and Speech Pathology Service, determined that those results were not adequate for rating purposes as specific protocols were not followed as for an Assessment of Social Efficiency. The Board observes that the appellant's healed perforation of the left ear drum is evaluated as noncompensable under diagnostic code 6211. This is the only evaluation for a healed perforation under this code. No compensable disablement is shown by the record due to the healed perforation. There is no medical basis upon which to predicate a grant of an increased (compensable) evaluation. No question has been presented as to which of two or more evaluations would more properly classify the severity of bilateral hearing loss or the healed perforation of the left ear drum. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Bilateral hearing loss and the healed perforation of the left ear drum have not rendered the veteran's disability picture unusual or exceptional in nature, and have not markedly interfered with employment. They have not required frequent inpatient care as to render impractical the application of regular schedular standards, thereby precluding grants of increased evaluations on an extraschedular basis. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that the evidence of record does not support grants of increased evaluations for bilateral hearing loss and a healed perforation of the left ear drum. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b)(1), 4.7, 4.85, 4.87(a), Diagnostic Codes 6101, 6211 (1994). ORDER Entitlement to an increased evaluation for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for a healed perforation of the left ear drum is denied. ALBERT D. TUTERA Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (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), 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 (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.