Citation Nr: 18157859 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/13/18 DOCKET NO. 16-56 556 DATE: December 13, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral eye retinal drusen is dismissed. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for service-connected hypertension is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral eye retinal drusen at his May 2018 Board hearing. 2. For the entire period on appeal the Veteran’s hypertension was manifested by diastolic pressure predominantly less than 100 and systolic pressure predominantly less than 160. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral eye retinal drusen have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017). 2. The criteria for entitlement to a compensable rating for service-connected hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.104 Diagnostic Code 7101(2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active duty service from March 1993 through June 2013. He testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a videoconference hearing in May 2018. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral eye retinal drusen is dismissed. The Board may dismiss any appeal that fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012). An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017). Withdrawal may be made by the Veteran or by his or her authorized representative. Id. At his May 2018 videoconference hearing, the Veteran notified the Board that he wished to withdraw his claim for service connection for bilateral eye retinal drusen. After a discussion from the VLJ with the Veteran and his representative regarding the Veteran’s request to withdraw the claim, he again confirmed he wished to withdraw the claim for bilateral eye retinal drusen. As such, there remains no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration as to this issue. The Board does not have jurisdiction to review the claim, and it is therefore dismissed. 2. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for service-connected hypertension is denied. Disability evaluations are determined by application of the criteria set forth in the VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which is based on average impairment in earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. An evaluation of the level of disability present must also include consideration of the functional impairment of the Veteran’s ability to engage in ordinary activities, including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. The Veteran contends he is entitled to a compensable evaluation for service-connected hypertension. His hypertension is rated as noncompensable under Diagnostic Code 7101. All blood pressure measurements will be expressed in units of millimeters of mercury (mmHg). Pursuant to Diagnostic Code 7101, a 10 percent rating is warranted for diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more, or; systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more, or; minimum evaluation for an individual with a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more who requires continuous medications for control. A higher 20 percent rating is assigned for diastolic pressure that is predominantly 110 or more, or; systolic pressure that is predominantly 200 or more. A 40 percent rating is assigned for diastolic pressure that is predominantly 120 or more. A 60 percent rating is assigned where diastolic pressure is predominantly 130 or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101. Note (1) following Diagnostic Code 7101 provides that the term “hypertension” means the diastolic blood pressure is predominantly 90 millimeters or greater, and isolated systolic hypertension means that the systolic blood pressure is predominantly 160 millimeters or greater with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 millimeters. At an February 2013 VA examination, a 2008 in-service diagnosis of hypertension was noted. On examination, the Veteran had blood pressure readings of: 140/62, 131/90 and 132/92. It was recorded that the Veteran had taken Lisinopril and Hydrochlorothiazide since his diagnosis and treatment plans included continued medications. Otherwise, the Veteran had no other physical findings, complications signs or symptoms of hypertension. Additionally, hypertension did not have an impact on the Veteran’s ability to work. October 2013 VA treatment records state that the Veteran’s blood pressure was 148/88. In November 2014, the Veteran had a blood pressure reading of 157/91. Treatment notes at this time state that he was not compliant with his medications and was advised to take medicine as directed. By March 2016, VA treatment records show that the Veteran had a blood pressure reading of 112/55 and continued to take Lisinopril 10mg. His hypertension was at goal and he was recommended to continue medication as prescribed. In a hypertension screening test, the Veteran indicated that his blood pressure ranged from 110s/60s and there were no signs of intractable headaches, focal weakness or blindness or sudden loss of visual acuity. In November 2016, the Veteran’s blood pressure reading was 128/72 and there was no change in medication. In January 2017, a blood pressure reading was 119/68 and met his targeted blood pressure goals of being less than 140/90. Again, there was no change in medication. At the May 2018 hearing, the Veteran reported that there has been a sense of urgency in increasing his medication based on some of the readings he has had since being hired as a CDL driver, because high blood pressure is a means of termination. However, the lay statements are less probative, because treatment notes of record, spanning through February 2018, do not show an increase in the Veteran’s medication for hypertension or significant changes in blood pressure readings. Based on the lay and medical evidence of record, the Board finds that he Veteran’s hypertension did not more nearly approximate the level of severity contemplated by a compensable rating at any time during the appeal period. As the record stands, there is not a history of diastolic pressure predominantly of 100 or more; nor is there a history of systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more. Although the Board does not dispute that the Veteran was put on medication to control his blood pressure, there is not also a diastolic blood pressure reading of 100 or more at any point during the appeal period. Of note, even when the Veteran was not compliant with medications, his diastolic blood pressure was still under 100. As a result, a compensable rating is not warranted. (Continued on the next page)   The preponderance of the evidence is against a compensable rating for the Veteran’s service-connected hypertension. As such, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is inapplicable. H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N.B. Mmeje, Associate Counsel