2010 audiometric test results were consistent with the 2013 au-diometric test results, which warranted a 10% disability rating. Appellee The Secretary argues that the effective date for an increased rating claim for hearing loss is contingent upon the date that the veteran received a hearing loss examination that complies with § 4.85(a), which includes the requirement that a Maryland CNC test be utilized. The Secretary further argues that for disability ratings that require the use of a specific test, retrospective medical opinions are not for application because the examiner necessarily would have to speculate as to the level of past disability because the required, specific test cannot be conducted retroactively. Thus, the Secretary argues that Chotta v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 80 (2008) (<HOLDING>), and its progeny are not for application in
holding retroactive application holding that the act is not retroactive holding that the act is retroactive holding no retroactive application recognizing that a retrospective examination might permit an examiner to provide a retroactive diagnosis