Citation Nr: 21005308 Decision Date: 02/01/21 Archive Date: 02/01/21 DOCKET NO. 17-59 171 DATE: February 1, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for service-connected hypertension is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s service-connected hypertension requires continuous medication for control; however, his systolic pressure has not been predominantly 160 or more, and his diastolic pressure has not been predominantly 100 or more. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria are not met for entitlement to a compensable rating for hypertension. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3,321, 4.1, 4.104, Diagnostic Code (DC/Code) 7101.   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1997 to September 2005. In November 2020, in support of this claim, the Veteran testified at a virtual hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge of the Board. A transcript of the proceeding is of record. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a higher rating for his service-connected hypertension, which has been rated as noncompensable (0-percent disabling) effectively since January 7, 2015, pursuant to Diagnostic Code 7101. According to DC 7101, a 10 percent rating for hypertension is assigned when diastolic pressure is predominantly 100 or more, or; when systolic pressure is predominantly 160 or more, or; when an individual with a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more requires continuous medication for control. A 20 percent rating is warranted when diastolic pressure is predominantly 110 or more, or; when systolic pressure is predominantly 200 or more. When diastolic pressure is predominantly 120 or more, a 40 percent rating is warranted. A maximum schedular rating of 60 percent is assigned when diastolic pressure is predominantly 130 or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, DC 7101. In every instance where the schedule does not provide a zero percent evaluation for a diagnostic code, a zero percent evaluation shall be assigned when the requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31. During his recent hearing, the Veteran admittedly was uncertain whether he has had elevated blood pressure readings (systolic or diastolic or both) of the required predominance to, in turn, warrant granting a higher rating for his hypertension. However, he said he has had “severe” hypertension for many years, especially when not medicated. He added that he has been taking medications for a couple of decades, and that he is now taking 3 different medications to manage his hypertension and one additional medication (a statin) for elevated cholesterol.   He said his blood pressure usually is in 120-130/70 range, if medicated, so concededly within normal limits. But he added that he also believes there are numerous readings in his records showing blood pressure in the higher range commensurate with a higher (i.e., compensable) rating, even if there are some readings still within normal limits. Again, he could not say for certain whether there is the required predominance of greater readings. In other testimony during his hearing, the Veteran explained that certain of his medications, one particularly, will make him dizzy and therefore susceptible to falling if he stands up too fast. Unfortunately, though, a review of the evidence of record does not show that the Veteran has had diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more or systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more, as to in turn warrant a higher rating. Blood pressure readings in the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) are numerous but do not meet the criteria for a minimal compensable rating of 10 percent and certainly not any greater rating. Notably, his STRs show approximately 60 blood pressure readings during his several years of service, which was from 1997 to 2005, of which only 15 reflected systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more or diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more. But, aside from that, the March 2015 and September 2017 VA examination reports, so from during the years since his service, and his post-service medical treatment records, also reflect blood pressure readings under 160 systolic and 100 diastolic. Thus, his blood pressure certainly has not been predominantly at these required levels, meaning well more often than not. Regarding his need for continuous medications to manage his hypertension, a precedent decision of the U. S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) discussed the “ameliorative effects” of medication and how this impacts disability evaluations. See Jones v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 56 (2012). In Jones, the CAVC noted that, in assigning a disability rating, the Board may not consider the ameliorative effects of medication where such effects are not explicitly contemplated by the rating criteria. Id. at 63. But, here, these ameliorative effects are indeed explicitly contemplated by the rating criteria in DC 7101; in fact, there is specific mention of this, so express contemplation, and even the Veteran concedes his medications have been successful in managing his hypertension. Therefore, a compensable rating for the Veteran’s hypertension is not warranted as the evidence of record does not demonstrate diastolic pressure predominately 100 or more or systolic pressure predominately 160 or more. While the evidence does show that he takes medications for his hypertension, it does not show both a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more or systolic pressure predominately 160 or more and the need for continuous medication for control. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence is against assignment of a compensable rating for the Veteran’s hypertension at any point during the appeal period, and the appeal consequently must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. KEITH W. ALLEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Mukherjee 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.