(a) 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. Examinations will be conducted without the use of hearing aids.
(b) Table VI, “Numeric Designation of Hearing Impairment Based on Puretone Threshold Average and Speech Discrimination,” is used to determine a Roman numeral designation (I through XI) for hearing impairment based on a combination of the percent of speech discrimination (horizontal rows) and the puretone threshold average (vertical columns). The Roman numeral designation is located at the point where the percentage of speech discrimination and puretone threshold average intersect.
(c) Table VIa, “Numeric Designation of Hearing Impairment Based Only on Puretone Threshold Average,” is used to determine a Roman numeral designation (I through XI) for hearing impairment based only on the puretone threshold average. Table VIa will be used when the examiner certifies that use of the speech discrimination test is not appropriate because of language difficulties, inconsistent speech discrimination scores, etc., or when indicated under the provisions of § 4.86.
(d) “Puretone threshold average,” as used in Tables VI and VIa, is the sum of the puretone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz, divided by four. This average is used in all cases (including those in § 4.86) to determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from Table VI or VIa.
(e) Table VII, “Percentage Evaluations for Hearing Impairment,” is used to determine the percentage evaluation by combining the Roman numeral designations for hearing impairment of each ear. The horizontal rows represent the ear having the better hearing and the vertical columns the ear having the poorer hearing. The percentage evaluation is located at the point where the row and column intersect.
(f) If impaired hearing is service-connected in only one ear, in order to determine the percentage evaluation from Table VII, the non-service-connected ear will be assigned a Roman Numeral designation for hearing impairment of I, subject to the provisions of § 3.383 of this chapter.
(g) When evaluating any claim for impaired hearing, refer to § 3.350 of this chapter to determine whether the veteran may be entitled to special monthly compensation due either to deafness, or to deafness in combination with other specified disabilities.
(h) Numeric tables VI, VIA*, and VII.
[64 FR 25206, May 11, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
188
cases (
19 in the last 5 years), 1993–2022 · leading case:
Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (Vet. App. 2017).
Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (Vet. App. 2017).
· cites it 5× “See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85 (2016), 4.86 (2016). Instead, VA evaluates service-connected hearing loss through the mechanical application of a veteran’s audiometric testing results to a rating table.”
Joseph Martinak v. R. James Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447 (Vet. App. 2007).
· cites it 5× “10 (2006)); see also 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 (a) (2006). He further argues that his audiological examination does not include a full description of the functional effects his disability has under the ordinary conditions of daily life.”
Ellis C. Smith v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 63 (Vet. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “For example, 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85 and 4.86, relating to "Evaluation of hearing impairment" and "Exceptional patterns of hearing impairment", both provide for dual ratings; however, both of these sections rate only impairment without regard to an underlying disease.”
Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155 (Vet. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “Where, as here, any of the relevant threshold hearing levels are 40 dB or more, a determination as to whether the hearing loss is service connected must be made under the statutory and regulatory provisions governing service connection generally, and the determination of the…”
Joe L. Monzingo v. Eric K. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97 (Vet. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See Hilkert, supra; compare 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 (2012) ("Evaluation of hearing impairment"), with 38 C.”
Robert A. Anderson v. Eric K. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 423 (Vet. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 , DCs 6100-6110 (2008). Disability ratings for hearing loss are derived from the mechanical process of applying the rating schedule to the specific numeric scores assigned by audiology testing.”
Thomas F. Cacciola v. Sloan D. Gibson, 27 Vet. App. 45 (Vet. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “at 11-15; see 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 (a) (1998 & 2006). The Board observed that the record included, other than the inadequate April 1985 report, four audiometric examination reports, three of which the Board addressed in the December 4, 2006, decision.”
Alan R. Swain v. Robert A. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 219 (Vet. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “Swain argues that the Board incorrectly interpreted the requirement in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 (a) (2013) that an examination for hearing impairment “must include a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC)” to mean that the effective date of a claim for an increased…”
Edward E. Meedel v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 277 (Vet. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “He asserts that an average of individual readings is only appropriate under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 (2009), which is used to rate a disability after it is determined that a disability exists under § 3.”
Burdett Huston v. Anthony J. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 195 (Vet. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “Claim Streams There are two claim streams in the history of the appellant’s VA claims for a hearing-loss disorder, see 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85 , 4.87a (1980); 38 C.F.”
Burdett Huston v. Anthony J. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 395 (Vet. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Claim Streams There are two claim streams in the history of the appellant’s VA claims for a hearing-loss disorder, see 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85 , 4.87a (1980); 38 C.F.”
— 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a) — 1 case
— 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(c) — 1 case
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.