Citation Nr: 20020103 Decision Date: 03/18/20 Archive Date: 03/18/20 DOCKET NO. 20-02 853 DATE: March 18, 2020 ORDER Service connection for hypertension is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s hypertension was not incurred in and due to his time in service nor is it proximately due to any of his service-connected disabilities. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for the establishment of service connection for hypertension, to include as proximately due to service-connected disabilities, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, 3.309, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from November 1984 to March 1985. Generally, to prevail on a claim of service connection on the merits, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) medical evidence or other competent evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). To establish service connection on a secondary basis, the evidence must show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a)(b) (2016), Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995) (en banc). The Veteran contends he has hypertension that was incurred in and due to his time in service or is secondary to his service-connected disabilities, to include his knee and leg disabilities. The Veteran has been diagnosed with hypertension. However, the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) are negative for high blood pressure readings or for complaint or treatment of hypertension. In fact, readings while in service show normal blood pressure. (See e.g. May 1984, September 1985 STRs.) Therefore, service connection on a direct basis will be denied. The Veteran had an examination for his hypertension in November 2018 in which the examiner saw the Veteran in person and reviewed his file and noted his diagnosis of hypertension. The examiner opined it was less likely than not the Veteran’s hypertension was proximately due to or the result of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities. The examiner based this on a review of the Veteran’s medical records and also went on to explain there was no evidence to show the Veteran’s knees got significantly worse around the time he started to have high blood pressure, which may have established a temporal relationship between the two. The examiner reported the Veteran’s high blood pressure was fairly well controlled with medication even when his knee and leg were exacerbated, further detracting from the relationship between the two conditions. While the examiner did not expressly provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s hypertension was aggravated by his service-connected conditions, it is clear from the examiner’s rationale, as noted above, that even when the Veteran’s knee and leg disabilities are exacerbated, his hypertension is not aggravated by these disabilities. The Board finds this examination to be adequate because the examiner saw the Veteran in person, reviewed his file, offered an opinion, and an explanation for that opinion. The remainder of the Veteran’s record does not contain objective evidence of a link between his hypertension and any of his service-connected conditions, to include his right leg or left knee disabilities. Regarding all the above, the Board acknowledges the Veteran’s statements that his hypertension bothers him, that he continues to seek treatment for it, and that he believes his hypertension is secondarily due to his service-connected disabilities, in particular his right leg and left knee disabilities. However, while the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms of a disability, he is not competent to opine on matters requiring medical knowledge, such as determining the nature and etiology of his medical condition. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Board provides more weight to the medical evidence of record as discussed above. It is important for the Veteran to understand that the medical findings provide highly probative evidence against this claim that the Board cannot, unfortunately, ignore, outweighing the Veteran’s belief that this problem is the result of service, providing a highly clear basis for the opinion. (Continued on the next page)   Regarding all the above, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-57(1990). John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Snoparsky 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.