Citation Nr: 18147826 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/06/18 DOCKET NO. 16-24 711A DATE: November 6, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for hypertension is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s hypertension is not productive of diastolic pressure predominantly 110 or more, or systolic pressure predominantly 200 or more. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from March 1990 to September 1995. The Veteran had an additional period of active service from September 1995 to February 1997; however, that period of service has been deemed dishonorable for VA purposes. This matter comes to the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Huntington, West Virginia. Increased Rating – Hypertension The Veteran asserts that she is entitled to a higher rating for hypertension as her blood pressure is worse than contemplated by the currently assigned rating. She reports that her blood pressure has only gone down because she takes more medication for her hypertension than she did initially. The evidence of record includes extensive documentation of the Veteran’s treatment for hypertension. VA Medical Center treatment records show that the Veteran has been prescribed Lisinopril and potassium chloride to treat her hypertension. A review of the record does in fact show that the Veteran’s prescription dosages have been increased over time. In November 2014, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. At that time, the Veteran was reported to require continuous medication for control of her hypertension. Her blood pressure readings were 136/91, 129/84, and 132/91. There were no other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs, or symptoms associated with her hypertension identified on examination. A review of the record shows that the Veteran receives treatment for her hypertension at the VA Medical Center. A review of the treatment notes of record show that her hypertension is generally controlled with medication. The Board acknowledges that there are occasional blood pressure readings showing a more severe disability. However, those readings are very infrequent. For example, in March 2016, the Veteran’s blood pressure was recorded at 189/120. However, it was noted that she had not been taking her medication. Subsequent readings from May 2016 showed her blood pressure to be 116/74, 108/72, and 115/71. The Board finds that the Veteran is not entitled to a rating in excess of 10 percent for her hypertension. In this regard, the evidence of record does not indicate that the Veteran has diastolic pressure predominantly 110 or more or systolic pressure predominantly 200 or more. While there are isolated readings of record showing diastolic pressure 110 or more, those readings are generally isolated and not indicative of the actual severity of the Veteran’s blood pressure when adequately controlled with medication. Further, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran’s medication dosage has increased over time. However, increase in medication is not sufficient to warrant the assignment of a higher rating. In fact, the usage of continuous medication for control is contemplated by the 10 percent rating currently assigned. Therefore, the Board finds that a rating in excess of 10 percent for hypertension is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101 (2018). Consideration has been given to assigning staged ratings. However, at no time during the period in question has the disability warranted a higher schedular rating than that assigned. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for hypertension is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Devyn Whitlock, Law Clerk