38 C.F.R. § 3.385
Disability due to impaired hearing
For the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 321
cases (38 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: Stanley J. Palczewski v. R. James Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174 (Vet. App. 2007).
Stanley J. Palczewski v. R. James Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174 (Vet. App. 2007). “Because the Court finds that 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2006) is in accordance with 38 U.”
Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155 (Vet. App. 1993). “See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (1992). The record does not contain any records of treatment for hearing problems in service.”
Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (Vet. App. 1995). “readings are not included because they are not considered pertinent under Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regulation 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 ): September 1963 (R. at 19): [[Image here]] November 1964 (R.”
Clyde McKinney, Jr. v. Robert A. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 15 (Vet. App. 2016). “Nevertheless, he argues that because the degree of hearing loss noted on his entrance examination did not constitute a hearing disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2015), the Board erred when it concluded that he had a preexisting hearing loss.”
Michael H. Jones v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382 (Vet. App. 2010). “at 5, 10, 230; 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2009). The examiner opined that the appellant's right ear hearing loss was directly related to his service-connected cholesteatoma and 2 perforated tympanic membrane.”
Edward E. Meedel v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 277 (Vet. App. 2009). “Panel consideration is required to determine whether 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2009) — the regulation under which impaired hearing is determined to be a disability — provides for the averaging of auditory thresholds.”
Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87 (Vet. App. 1992). “In its decision of May 7, 1991, the Board made specific reference to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (1991), which had been promulgated one year earlier, and listed the regulation as supporting its conclusion.”
Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 532 (Vet. App. 1993). “Additionally, the veteran’s January 1985 report of examination at separation from service contains a diagnosis of “mild high frequency hearing loss” (R.”
Boggs v. Peake, 520 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “14 (instructing the Secretary to avoid the “evaluation of the same disability under various diagnoses” when determining disability ratings for compensation purposes); see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.385 , 4.85 (instructing the Secretary to consider the veteran’s degree of hearing…”
Kelly v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 471 (Vet. App. 1995). “The BVA did not deny that the appellant had had a decrease in auditory acuity; however, the BVA stated that “the degree of impairment identified is insufficient to be designated abnormal for VA purposes per 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 .” Id. at 5 . Regarding the tinnitus, the BVA noted…”
James E. Savage v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 259 (Vet. App. 2011). “345, 349 (1992); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2010) (stating that, for VA purposes, “impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability” only when hearing loss examination results reach certain auditory thresholds).”
Phillips v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 25 (Vet. App. 1997). “The BVA granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss, finding that the appellant’s “hearing was not within normal limits at separation from service under the standards of [ 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 ]. The hearing loss by definition began during service.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.