Citation Nr: 21005099 Decision Date: 01/29/21 Archive Date: 01/29/21 DOCKET NO. 17-66 735 DATE: January 29, 2021 ORDER An increased rating in excess of 20 percent for residuals of a peptic ulcer is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s residuals of a peptic ulcer have been manifested by no more than moderate symptoms throughout the claim period. See VA Examinations dated May 2017, February 2020; April 2019 Board Hearing; May 2019 Private Treatment Record (PTR). CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an increased rating in excess of 20 percent for residuals of a peptic ulcer are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.114, Diagnostic Code 7305. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from March 1953 to March 1955. This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In April 2019, the Veteran testified at a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge who has since retired from the Board. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In December 2020, the Veteran was afforded an opportunity to request a new hearing before another Veterans Law Judge and did not respond. Therefore, the Board now adjudicates this claim on the basis of the record as it stands, including the April 2019 Board hearing. The Veteran’s residuals of a peptic ulcer are currently rated as 20 percent disabling under Diagnostic Code 7305. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.114. Under that code, a rating in excess of 20 percent requires moderately severe duodenal ulcer with impairment of health manifested by anemia and weight loss or recurrent incapacitating episodes averaging ten days or more in duration at least four times a year, or severe duodenal ulcer with pain only partially relieved by standard ulcer therapy, periodic vomiting, recurrent hematemesis or melena, as well as anemia and weight loss productive of definite impairment of health. Id. The Veteran has been afforded two VA examinations to evaluate his peptic ulcer residuals during the claim period. A May 2017 VA examination noted symptoms of continuous abdominal pain, but no incapacitating episodes, vomiting, or hematemesis. The examiner did not note anemia. The Veteran reported that he had lost weight. A February 2020 VA examination noted no evidence of anemia or weight loss with symptoms of abdominal pain at least monthly and recurrent episodes, not severe, occurring twice a year and lasting less than one day. Similarly, a private doctor in May 2019 recorded that he could not state that the Veteran had anemia or even an ulcer, though he did note epigastric pain. Finally, at his April 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran reported that he had been hospitalized for his ulcer residuals for several days three months prior to the hearing. However, a records request from the relevant hospital was returned negative, and the Veteran’s representative submitted a statement in October 2019 indicating that there were no relevant records at the hospital. The most recent hospitalization in the Veteran’s record occurred in July 2018 for a syncopal episode. At his hearing, the Veteran also testified that bad episodes related to his ulcer residuals caused him to vomit and impaired his daily functioning for two to three days. He otherwise characterized his symptoms as pain after eating. The Veteran is competent to report his own symptoms, and the Board credits his testimony regarding his ordinary symptoms of ulcer residuals, as well as regarding his severe episodes. Nevertheless, the Board finds that the evidence indicates the Veteran has had no weight loss or anemia throughout the claim period. Although the Veteran reported weight loss at the May 2017 VA examination, as the February 2020 VA examiner noted, the Veteran’s recorded weight has been stable for the past several years. See, e.g., VA Treatment Records dated August 2017, August 2018. Therefore, the Board finds that the criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent for residuals of a peptic ulcer are not met at any point throughout the claim period. Accordingly, an increased rating in excess of 20 percent is not warranted. S.C. KREMBS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P. Timmerman, 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.