Opinion ID: 868377
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Audiological Testing

Text: Mr. MacPherson makes several arguments that he contends are constitutional in nature regarding the audiological tests that the VA performed. He argues, for example, that the RO violated his due process and equal protection rights when it failed to perform certain tests, including testing his hearing at several additional “puretone thresholds.” Mr. MacPherson alleges that the VA contravened its own requirements by failing to perform these tests. As an initial matter, despite how Mr. MacPherson frames his objections to the VA’s audiological testing, we conclude that he does not present any genuine constitutional issues. It is well-established that an appellant’s mere characterization of an issue as constitutional “does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack.” Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, Mr. MacPherson fails to show how the fact that the VA did not perform tests beyond those required by the regulation is a constitutional violation. Regardless, the Veterans Court correctly concluded that the VA examiner followed the VA’s hearing impairment regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, when the examiner conducted the speech recognition and puretone audiometry tests. The regulation does not require the VA to perform the additional tests that Mr. MacPherson alleges DONALD MACPHERSON v. SHINSEKI 7 were improperly omitted. As the Veterans Court explained, the Board applied the rating schedule to the audiological test results in accordance with the regulations. We thus hold that the Veterans Court correctly concluded that the Board properly relied on these tests to conclude that Mr. MacPherson’s hearing loss did not warrant a compensable rating.