Citation Nr: 20056065 Decision Date: 08/25/20 Archive Date: 08/25/20 DOCKET NO. 15-15 924 DATE: August 25, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to an initial 10 percent disability evaluation for hypertension is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s hypertension requires continuous medication. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a 10 percent rating, but no higher, for hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5103A, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.321, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from July 1996 to July 2009. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an October 2013 rating decision of the Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This matter was remanded by the Board in July 2018 for additional development. A supplemental statement of the case was issued in June 2020. The case was returned to the Board for appellate consideration. Duties to Notify and Assist The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) imposes obligations on VA to provide claimants with notice and assistance. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-154, §§ 504, 505, 126 Stat. 1165, 1191-93; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2019). The VCAA requires VA to assist a claimant at the time that he or she files a claim for benefits. As part of this assistance, VA is required to notify claimants of the evidence that is necessary in substantiating their claims, and provide notice that a disability rating and an effective date for the award of benefits will be assigned if service connection is awarded. 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002); Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473, 486 (2006). Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). Increased Rating 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. After careful consideration of the evidence, any reasonable doubt remaining is resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Separate evaluations may be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts found. In other words, the evaluations may be staged. Staged ratings are appropriate for any rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods during the appeal period where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for hypertension, initially rated as noncompensable. The Veteran's hypertension is currently rated as noncompensable (0 percent) disabling pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101. According to Diagnostic Code 7101, a 10 percent disability evaluation is warranted where diastolic pressure is predominantly 100 or more, systolic pressure is predominantly 160 or more, or the individual has a history of diastolic pressure of 100 or more and requires continuous medication for control. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101. For the next higher 20 percent disability evaluation, diastolic pressure must be predominantly 110 or more or systolic pressure must be 200 or more. A 40 percent disability evaluation requires diastolic pressure to be predominantly 120 or more, and a 60 percent disability evaluation requires diastolic blood pressure to be predominantly 130 or more. Id. After a review of all the evidence, lay and medical, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence demonstrates that a 10 percent disability evaluation, but no higher, is warranted for the Veteran’s hypertension for the entire rating period on appeal. The Veteran’s hypertension has required medication for control since the date of service connection; both the August 2013 and June 2019 VA examination reports reflect that the Veteran reported taking medication for control of his hypertension. In addition, the June 2019 VA examination report indicates that the Veteran had a history of a diastolic blood pressure elevation to predominantly 100 or more. However, there are no blood pressure readings demonstrating diastolic pressure predominantly 110 or more or systolic pressure of 200 or more. At the August 2013 VA examination, blood pressure readings were 140/86, 138/88, and 140/86. At the June 2019 VA examination, blood pressure readings were 148/86, 138/86, and 134/86. Considering all the evidence of record, the Veteran’s symptomatology does not support a higher rating requiring diastolic numbers predominantly above 110 and systolic numbers predominantly above 200, but most closely approximates the criteria for a 10 percent disability evaluation. In reaching this decision, the Board also considered other applicable Diagnostic Codes for his hypertension. However, the Veteran is already in receipt of a separate disability evaluation for hypertensive cardiovascular disease. As such, 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7007 is not for application here. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Hallie E. Brokowsky, 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.