hypertension hypertension

[Palma114]

I have a DRO hearing in about 3 weeks on my hypertension for 10% that was denied about a year ago. DAV rep tells me that I wont get 10%, because right now or for the last 7 yrs it's been somewhat controlled by medications, before I filed the claim and before I started on medications it were 212/103, 180/86, 161/76, 161/88, 160/91, 165/96, 151/99, 150/90, 161/94.

I seen this the other day, I think I'm going to use it, Reference: U.S. Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, No. 11-2704, David J. Jones V. Eric K. Shinseki 10/26/12, VA cannot rate you on the new improved version of yourself after the beneficial effects of the medications have had their desired effects. Any opinions or other helpful information.

[Chuck75]

23 minutes ago, Palma114 said:

I have a DRO hearing in about 3 weeks on my hypertension for 10% that was denied about a year ago. DAV rep tells me that I wont get 10%, because right now or for the last 7 yrs it's been somewhat controlled by medications, before I filed the claim and before I started on medications it were 212/103, 180/86, 161/76, 161/88, 160/91, 165/96, 151/99, 150/90, 161/94.

I seen this the other day, I think I'm going to use it, Reference: U.S. Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, No. 11-2704, David J. Jones V. Eric K. Shinseki 10/26/12, VA cannot rate you on the new improved version of yourself after the beneficial effects of the medications have had their desired effects. Any opinions or other helpful information.

Never the less, the VA has been doing this for a very long time. What happens when treatment alleviates the symptoms, but the condition remains is the larger question. The VA once a condition/disability is established, often rates on symptoms.

Just another way to minimize compensation, don't you know!

[Vync]

Hey Palma,
I think you may be correct. Your DAV is likely only reading the first parts of a three part criteria. When the OR's are in there, you meet it by qualifying for any of those. Be sure to educate them.

This part is probably the key for you: "or; minimum evaluation for an individual with a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more who requires continuous medication for control". All you should have to show is that you have a history of diastolic 100 or more and you currently take meds for it.

 

Here's the current rating criteria for hypertension:

Diseases of the Arteries and Veins
7101   Hypertensive vascular disease (hypertension and isolated systolic hypertension):
Diastolic pressure predominantly 130 or more	60
Diastolic pressure predominantly 120 or more	40
Diastolic pressure predominantly 110 or more, or; systolic pressure predominantly 200 or more	20
Diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more, or; systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more, or; minimum evaluation for an individual with a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more who requires continuous medication for control	10
Note (1): Hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension must be confirmed by readings taken two or more times on at least three different days. For purposes of this section, the term hypertension means that the diastolic blood pressure is predominantly 90mm. or greater, and isolated systolic hypertension means that the systolic blood pressure is predominantly 160mm. or greater with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90mm.
Note (2): Evaluate hypertension due to aortic insufficiency or hyperthyroidism, which is usually the isolated systolic type, as part of the condition causing it rather than by a separate evaluation.
Note (3): Evaluate hypertension separately from hypertensive heart disease and other types of heart disease.

 

And here's a BVA claim reversing an RO denial and awarding 10% for hypertension. They used Jones v. Shinseki to win!

http://www.va.gov/vetapp14/Files2/1414054.txt

However, the Veteran is competent to report that his health care provider told him that his diastolic blood pressure was 100 or more at the time he was diagnosed.  Since he reports having diastolic pressure that rose to 100 or higher when he stopped taking his medication, it is shown as likely as not that it would been 100 or higher at the time that the medication was prescribed, satisfying the criteria for a 10 percent rating.  

In coming to this conclusion, the Board has resolved all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor.

...

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran reported that his blood pressure rose to levels higher than this when he stopped taking his medication.  While ordinarily the effects of medication are not considered when assigning a disability rating, see Jones v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 56 (2012), in this case diagnostic code 7101 specifically contemplates the use of medication to control blood pressure levels and provides for a 10 percent rating when there is a history of diastolic pressure above 100 and medication is used successfully for control. 

...

ORDER
An increased, initial rating of 10 percent for the service-connected hypertension is granted, subject to the regulations controlling disbursement of VA monetary benefits.  

 

 

I hope this helps!

 

[Palma114]

Thank you, guys for your help.

[Carl the Engineer]

"VA cannot rate you on the new improved version of yourself after the beneficial effects of the medications have had their desired effects"

We'll that would change the rating on about a million vets with HBP under control with meds rated at 0%.  Well that would cost the VA about $200,000,000.00 a month or a couple billion a year.  So I dont see that happening.

However, I am going to include it in my new claims for this year.  179/109 before meds, 0% SC'd after meds.  Should be good for 10%.

Question I have for you experts is: Can you cite VA cases in your original claim(s) for support for a rating?

Thanks, and good luck,

Hamslice

[Palma114]

Hamslice

I believe most Veterans are unaware of Jones V. Shinseki,  I certainly was not aware, and that specific case was just won in 2012. I am certainly going to use it and see what happens. What we do know is that it was won at the CAVC.

 

[Buck52]

 Hamslice,

I don;t see why not if the particular case pertains to the same as yours in detail and as the evidence shows....your only suggesting that.& what the VA decision was in that particular case  and your claim should be awarded too. 

just remember probative evidence wins.

 

..........Buck