Citation Nr: 21010323 Decision Date: 02/24/21 Archive Date: 02/24/21 DOCKET NO. 15-38 913A DATE: February 24, 2021 ORDER A compensable rating for hypertension is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s hypertension was not manifested by diastolic pressure of 100 or more, or by systolic pressure of 160 or more. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a compensable rating for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.104, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7101. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1977 to February 1997. The Board previously remanded this matter in July 2019. The issues at that time were entitlement to an increased rating for hypertension and service connection for aortic insufficiency, including as due to hypertension. In the supplemental statement of the case issued in September 2020, it was noted that the heart condition issue would be the subject of a future decision. Increased Ratings Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings which is based on average impairment of earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability is resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Hypertension The Veteran’s hypertension has been assigned a noncompensable (0%) rating since his June 2012 grant of service connection under DC 7101. Under DC 7101, a 10 percent rating is assigned when diastolic pressure is predominantly 100 or more; systolic pressure is 160 or more; or when there is a history of diastolic pressure of 100 or more and continuous medication is required for control. A 20 percent rating is assigned when diastolic pressure is predominantly 110 or more, or when systolic pressure is predominantly 200 or more. A 40 percent rating is assigned when diastolic pressure is predominantly 120 or more and a 60 percent rating is assigned when diastolic pressure is predominantly 130 or more. Blood pressure readings are shown as systolic pressure/diastolic pressure. After review of the record, the Board does not find that any medical evidence of record shows the Veteran’s hypertension resulted in diastolic pressure of 100 or more or systolic pressure of 160 or more. The Veteran’s hypertension is controlled by continuous medication. However, no blood pressure readings contained in the evidence of record rise to the level required by DC 7101 to warrant a compensable rating. The Veteran underwent two VA examinations – in September 2013 and January 2020. Neither of those examinations found that the Veteran had a history of diastolic blood pressure of 100 or more and neither examination recorded his systolic pressure at 160 or more. The Veteran did not report that his pressure was either 100 or more or 160 or more but stated that his symptoms were lightheaded and dizziness. A review of the Veteran’s VA medical records shows he often reported that his blood pressure was well controlled. See September 2014 record, March 2015 record, August 2017 record, February 2018 record, and April 2020 record. Additionally, neither the Veteran nor his representative have identified any evidence since the 2012 grant of service connection which shows the Veteran satisfies the criteria necessary for a compensable rating for his hypertension. The Board has considered the Veteran’ statements and has concluded that the medical evidence, prepared by skilled professionals, is more probative regarding the Veteran’s degree of disability. As such, the Board finds that the evidence of record does not support a compensable rating for the Veteran’s hypertension. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not for application, and the claim must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Parrish, 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.