Citation Nr: 21014942 Decision Date: 03/16/21 Archive Date: 03/16/21 DOCKET NO. 17-55 075 DATE: March 16, 2021 ORDER A disability rating of 20 percent for hypertension is granted. FINDING OF FACT Throughout the period on appeal, the Veteran’s hypertension has been characterized by a diastolic pressure of predominately 110 mm/Hg or more. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103(a), 5103A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.104, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7101. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1992 to October 2001. The Veteran testified via videoconference before the undersigned Veterans’ Law Judge in December 2020. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Increased Ratings Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings which is based on average impairment of earning capacity. Generally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. While the Board typically considers only those factors contained wholly in the rating criteria, it is appropriate to consider factors outside the specific rating criteria when appropriate in order to best determine the level of occupational and social impairment. See Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (2002); Massey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 204, 208 (1994). Where there is a question as to which of two separate evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria required for that particular rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. When a reasonable doubt arises regarding the degree of disability, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, it is the present level of disability that is of primary concern. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). Nevertheless, where the evidence contains factual findings that show a change in the severity of symptoms during the course of the rating period on appeal, assignment of staged ratings would be permissible. See Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for hypertension The Veteran is seeking an increased rating for his service-connected hypertension, which is currently rated at 10 percent. According to the applicable rating criteria, a rating of 20 percent for hypertension requires evidence of diastolic pressure predominantly 110 mm/Hg or more, or a systolic pressure predominantly 200 mm/Hg or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, DC 7101. Based on the evidence of record, the Board determines that a rating in excess of 10 percent is warranted. Specifically, an October 2017 private physician statement stated that the Veteran’s blood pressure would be above 110 without medication. Moreover, he stated that during his at least his last three visits his diastolic blood pressure was above 110. Additionally, VA treatment records in April 2016 show his blood pressure as 158/111 and as 180/110 in March 2017. At his hearing before the Board, the Veteran stated that a 20 percent rating would satisfy his appeal, and the grant of 20 percent considered a full grant of the benefits sought. In any event, the Veteran does not have any treatment records that indicate his diastolic blood pressure is higher than 120. Therefore, the Veteran is not entitled a rating beyond 20 percent. Thus, throughout the period on appeal the Veteran is entitled to an increased rating of 20 percent for his service-connected hypertension as the medical records reflect a predominant diastolic blood pressure of 110 mm/Hg. 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. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Billinger, Associate Counsel