Citation Nr: 20008154 Decision Date: 01/30/20 Archive Date: 01/30/20 DOCKET NO. 17-57 541 DATE: January 30, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for hypertension is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s hypertension is not productive of the required symptomatology for a compensable rating. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an initial compensable rating for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active air service from May 1975 to May 1979 with additional periods active duty for training in the Air Reserves, and active service in the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) from January 1991 to October 2013. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In connection with this appeal, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in November 2019. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. The Veteran has asserted that symptoms of his hypertension are worse than that contemplated by the currently assigned rating. Service treatment records reflected that the Veteran had high blood pressure as early as 2008. At his August 2013 PHS retirement examination, the Veteran had an elevated blood pressure (BP) reading of 138/87. In January 2015, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. His treatment plan included taking continuous medication for his hypertension. He did not have a history of a diastolic BP elevation to predominantly 100 or more. Upon physical examination, his current BP readings were 121/78, 122/82, and 125/83, averaging 122/80. There were no other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs, or symptoms related to his hypertension. The Veteran was provided an additional VA examination in December 2018. Upon physical examination, his current BP readings were 137/94, 140/64, and 142/94, averaging 139/84. The examination was unremarkable for any other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs, or symptoms related to his hypertension. A review of post-service treatment records showed that the Veteran has received additional treatment for his hypertension. In August 2015, the Veteran’s family physician stated that he changed the Veteran’s medication to help the Veteran control his hypertension during his active service. Additionally, the Veteran complained that his BP readings were as high as 150/100 in March 2017 and in excess of 170/90, after his medication failed to work or was discontinued. However, the Board notes that there is no indication from the record that the Veteran’s BP readings were manifestly different than the findings discussed above. By January 2019, a VA medical provider noted that the Veteran’s self-reported BP readings were good overall with a low reading of 108/59 and a few BP readings as high as 140s and 150s systolic pressure. In a January 2019 follow-up, the Veteran reported that his medications appeared to be working well with no side effects. He stated that his BP readings were around 130/84 and averaged 121/76. Based on the foregoing, a higher rating is not warranted for the entire period on appeal. In this regard, there is no indication from the record that the Veteran’s diastolic pressure is predominantly 100 or more, or; systolic pressure is predominantly 160 or more, or; has a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more who requires continuous medication for control. Accordingly, the Board finds that a compensable rating is not warranted under 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms, including requiring medication to keep his blood pressure and risk of stroke and heart attack down. Certainly, laypersons are competent to attest to physical symptoms that are experienced or observed. Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005). However, the Board finds that the lay evidence does not establish a greater degree of functional impairment than that contemplated by the currently assigned rating. 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. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Ware, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.