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.

[Vync]

4 hours ago, Palma114 said:

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.

 

I was not aware of this until about a year ago. However, there are some ratings where medication can result in increased percentages, such as the asthma rating table.

[Vync]

10 hours ago, Hamslice said:

"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

Hey Hamslice,
Without knowing the specifics of your case, it is difficult to offer an opinion. In Palma's case, he filed for hypertension and mentioned he was denied, but did indicate numerous examples of hypertension. He did not indicate the circumstances on how he was denied, so my response was based on the assumption that he might have been rated as 0% because the denied 10% due to it not being applied properly. If he was denied outright for not having one of the three SC criteria (in-service event/or trying for secondary, current diagnosis, or nexus), then those would have to be overcome separately in order to obtain SC status.

[Palma114]

In my particular case, I was granted service-connection for my hypertension, but with 0% ratings, because my RO stated that, yes I had 10% ratings readings, but along with all the other 25 medicated readings, they denied it because their claim is, it is controlled by medication.

[Vync]

22 minutes ago, Palma114 said:

In my particular case, I was granted service-connection for my hypertension, but with 0% ratings, because my RO stated that, yes I had 10% ratings readings, but along with all the other 25 medicated readings, they denied it because their claim is, it is controlled by medication.

Hey Palma,
I had a feeling that was the situation. Sometimes the VA might say the condition is 0%, but it could be SC or not SC. I was not sure.

Keep in mind the full text of the rating criteria. Systolic is the top/first number and Diastolic is the bottom/second number. The rating criteria for 10% has three parts:

1. Diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more, or;
2. systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more, or;
3. minimum evaluation for an individual with a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more who requires continuous medication for control

and there are notes too:

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.

 

I wanted to point this out because of the BP readings you posted. In only one instance was your diastolic above 100. The third part indicates it "a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more". However, your systolic was 160+ in seven of the nine readings, which should qualify as meeting the "predominantly" criteria for 10%. Either way, it sounds promising.

Note (1) is a real odd catch. They state the numbers must be confirmed 2+ times on at least three different days. If your BP history is limited to the VA, keep in mind that they often will do a second reading if the first reading is high, but it is very rare for any of my VA nurses to ever log both readings. They seem to only log just the lower of the two. If you happen to have a BP diary, that could be a good benefit. If you read the text of the BVA decision I linked earlier you will find something interesting about who's word was taken. Even though the BVA claimed the veteran was competent to testify on their own observations, quite often the VA raters seem to ignore it.

[Palma114]

Hey Vync,

Thanks, good information, it really has helped me get prepared for this DRO hearing.

[jbasser]

I need to ask you a couple of questions. Are you service connected for any heart disease?

Any Kidney disease?