Citation Nr: 1039655 Decision Date: 10/22/10 Archive Date: 10/27/10 DOCKET NO. 05-13 777 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. 2. Entitlement to service connection for heart disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. L. Rippel, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1940 to October 1945 and from October 1962 to November 1962. He had additional periods of active duty for training in the United States Air Force Reserve from February 1955 to March 1972. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in October 2006. A transcript of that proceeding is of record. At the hearing, a motion was granted to advance this case on the Board's docket due to the Veteran's advanced age. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2010). When this case was most recently before the Board in July 2009, the Board remanded the claims for additional development. The case since has been returned to the Board for further appellate action. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's hypertension is etiologically related to active service. 2. The Veteran's current heart disease is etiologically related to his service-connected hypertension. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Hypertension was incurred in active duty. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2010). 2. The Veteran's heart disability is proximately due to or the result of service-connected hypertension. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (2006). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that the Veteran has been provided sufficient notice, to include notice pertaining to the disability-rating and effective-date elements of his claims. In addition, the evidence currently of record is sufficient to establish his entitlement to service connection for hypertension and heart disability. Therefore, no further development is required under 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002 & Supp. 2009) or 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2010). Legal Criteria Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2010). Service connection may be granted for disability which is proximately due to or the result of service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Additional disability resulting from the aggravation of a nonservice-connected disability by a service- connected disability is also compensable under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995) (en banc). During the pendency of this claim, 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 was amended, effective October 10, 2006. The amendments to this section are not liberalizing. Therefore, the Board will apply the former version of the regulation. Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. The Secretary shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case before the Secretary with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996), citing Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. Analysis The Veteran claims that service connection is warranted for hypertension and heart disability because hypertension originated in service and his current heart disease is related to hypertension according to physicians who have examined and treated him. Pertinent service treatment records reflect that he had blood pressure readings of 148/90 twice on April 3, 1971, during an annual physical examination. He also reported being recently diagnosed with hypertension by a private doctor at that time. The Veteran had multiple periods of active duty in 1970 and 1971, to include a periods of active duty in February and March 1971. A VA physician was asked to evaluate the Veteran's claim and determine the likelihood of whether the Veteran's hypertension and heart disease were related to service. In April 2009 the VA physician reported that he examined the claims folder and identified the aforementioned blood pressure readings in April 1971 as evidence of hypertension. He opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's hypertension was related to his active service. The physician also opined that the Veteran's subsequent heart disease was most likely related to his hypertension. The Veteran's private physician reported in September 2009 that he had been treating the Veteran for 15 years for hypertension which had been present since 1971. In a January 2010 addendum, the VA physician who examined the Veteran indicated that he again reviewed the claims folder but could not find service treatment records in the claims folder. He stated that he had earlier found the records of the April 1971 hypertension readings. He reiterated that these were indicative of hypertension in 1971, if they in fact did exist. He did find that there was, generally, no causal relationship between PTSD and sustained hypertension. In a July 2010 addendum, the physician again reviewed the claims folder to address the issue of whether PTSD aggravated the hypertension or heart disease. He stated that, absent any definitive literature, he could not say there was a relationship between PTSD and the Veteran's heart disease or hypertension. As noted, the Board finds the April 1971 treatment record with the hypertension readings in the claims folder. Thus, the physician's September 2009 opinion is supported in the record. There is no contrary opinion of record. Therefore, service connection for hypertension, and heart disease as secondary to hypertension, is in order. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is granted. Entitlement to service connection for heart disability is granted. ____________________________________________ Shane A. Durkin Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs