Citation Nr: 21042809 Decision Date: 07/13/21 Archive Date: 07/13/21 DOCKET NO. 19-17 873 DATE: July 13, 2021 ORDER For the period of the appeal a 10 percent rating for hypertension is granted. FINDING OF FACT Throughout the period of the appeal, the Veteran's hypertension requires continuous medication for control. CONCLUSION OF LAW For the period of the appeal, the criteria for the assignment of a 10 percent rating for the service-connected hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.104 Diagnostic Code 7101. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from October 1966 to June 1970 and again from March 1976 to September 1989. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2018 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). It was previously before the Board in January 2020 at which time it was remanded for further development. Disability ratings are determined by applying the rating criteria set forth in VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) and represent, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. The basis of disability evaluations is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.10, 3.321. In determining the severity of a disability, the Board is required to consider the potential application of various other provisions of the regulations governing VA compensation, as well as the whole recorded history of the Veteran's disability. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2; see generally Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). Where there is a question of which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria for that rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Otherwise, the lower rating is assigned. Id. Where an increase in the level of a service-connected disability is at issue, the primary concern is the present level of disability. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55 (1999). However, that is not the case where the Veteran has expressed dissatisfaction with the assignment of an initial rating following an initial award of service connection for that disability. Separate ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts founda practice known as "staged rating". Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999). Here, the Veteran's hypertension was rated as noncompensable throughout the majority of the period on appeal. However, while the Board notes that the Veteran's disability rating was increased to 10 percent during the pendency of the appeal, a claimant is generally presumed to be seeking the maximum benefit allowed by law and regulation. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993); 12/2/2020 Rating Decision. Therefore, this claim remains in controversy because less than the maximum available benefit was awarded. Under Diagnostic Code 7101: a 10 percent rating is warranted for (1) diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more; or (2) systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more; or (3) a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more which requires continuous medication for control. A 20 percent rating is warranted for (1) diastolic pressure predominantly 110 or more; or (2) systolic pressure predominantly 200 or more. A rating of 40 percent is assigned when diastolic pressure is predominantly 120 or more; and a rating of 60 percent is assigned when diastolic pressure is predominantly 130 or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.104. The Veteran was afforded three VA examinations for his hypertension. In all of the VA examinations it was noted that continuous medication was needed to manage the Veteran's condition. See 5/2/2018 C&P Examination; 3/11/2020 C&P Examination; 11/20/2020 C&P Examination. In the May 2018 examination the Veteran's blood pressure was recorded as 150/80, 148/80, and 146/78; in the March 2020 examination the Veteran's blood pressure was recorded as 132/82, 141/85, 138/89 and; in the November 2020 examination the Veteran's blood pressure was recorded as 170/90, 170/90, and 170/90. A number of private treatment records were also associated with the record, many of which do not positively impact the Veteran's claim for an increased rating. But notably, a couple of Kaiser Permanente records reflect a blood pressure reading of 160/80 on June 11, 2019 and 180/111 on July 26, 2019. See 6/20/2019 Medical Treatment Record; 2/13/2020 Medical Treatment Record. The evidence shows that the Veteran requires continuous medication for control of his hypertension. Thus, the Board concludes that this evidence demonstrates that the manifestations of his hypertension more closely resembled the criteria for a 10 percent rating from October 22, 2017 and throughout the appeal period. The Board finds in reaching this conclusion that the overall severity of the service-connected hypertension is not shown to have significantly changed during his appeal. The manifestations of the Veteran's hypertension do not warrant assignment of a rating greater than 10 percent. A 20 percent rating requires evidence of diastolic pressure predominantly 110 or more, or systolic pressure predominantly 200 or more. The Blood pressure readings documented above show that the Veteran's hypertension has not been manifested by diastolic pressure predominantly 110 or more, or systolic pressure predominantly 200 or more. Thus, a rating greater than 10 percent is not warranted for the hypertension. The Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor has the record reasonably raised any other issues. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 69-70 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). G. Jackson Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Z. Sloley, 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.