Citation Nr: 18125437 Decision Date: 08/09/18 Archive Date: 08/09/18 DOCKET NO. 14-19 999 DATE: August 9, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for hypertension is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s hypertension is not manifested by a diastolic pressure of predominantly 100 or more or systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more; nor is there probative evidence he has a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more requiring continuous medication. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an initial compensable rating for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7101 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1987 to August 2010. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2012 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Increased Rating Disability evaluations are determined by evaluating the extent to which a Veteran’s service-connected disability adversely affects his or her ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment, by comparing his or her symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The percentage ratings represent, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and the residual conditions in civilian occupations. Generally, the degree of disabilities specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbation or illness proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities and the criteria for specific ratings. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Pertinent regulations also provide that it is not necessary for all of the individual criteria to be present as set forth in the Rating Schedule, but that findings sufficient to identify the disability and level of impairment be considered. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21. If two disability evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture that more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Hypertensive vascular disease warrants a 10 percent rating when diastolic pressure is predominantly 100 or more, systolic pressure is predominantly 160 or more, or when an individual has a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more and requires continuous medication for control. 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, DC 7101. A 20 percent rating requires diastolic pressure of predominantly 110 or more or systolic pressure predominantly 200 or more. Id. A 40 percent rating requires diastolic pressure of predominantly 120 or more. Id. A 60 percent rating requires diastolic pressure of predominantly 130 or more. Id. 1. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for hypertension. The Veteran was initially granted service connection for hypertension in April 2012, at which time a noncompensable rating was assigned, effective September 2010. A review of the Veteran’s medical records documents ongoing treatment for hypertension, including a prescription for Lisinopril. However, private treatment records consistently list the Veteran’s hypertension as benign from May 2011 to October 2012. During this time, the Veteran’s blood pressure readings were 117/66, 154/89, 121/81, and 127/81. In July 2011, the Veteran had a VA examination regarding his hypertension. His blood pressure readings were 121/83, 127/89, and 116/84. In April 2017, the Veteran had another VA examination regarding his hypertension. At this exam his blood pressure readings were 138/94, 136/96, and 140/92. The examiner opined that the Veteran did not have any other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs, or symptoms related to his hypertension and that his hypertension did not impact his ability to work. The Board notes that the medical records show that the Veteran had several 5-day blood pressure checks prior to his September 2010 effective date, in December 2005 and August 2008. However, each of these checks also reported blood pressure readings below the required level for a 10 percent evaluation. As stated previously, to warrant a compensable rating, the Veteran must have a diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more, systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more, or have a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more and require continuous medication for control. 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, DC 7101. In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of blood pressure readings at the levels necessary to warrant a 10 percent rating. Although the Veteran requires continuous medication for control, there is no persuasive evidence of a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more, or systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran’s current noncompensable rating appropriately compensates the Veteran for the severity of his disability. The Veteran has only been diagnosed with hypertension, which is specifically covered by DC 7101. As such, it would be inappropriate to rate his disability by analogy to any other Diagnostic Codes. Copeland v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 333, 336–37 (2015) (“the Court reiterates that when a condition is specifically listed in the Schedule, it may not be rated by analogy”). Accordingly, entitlement to an initial compensable rating for hypertension is denied. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, the doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55–57 (1990). TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Ruiz, Associate Counsel