C.F.R. » Title 38 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS › PART 4—SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES › Subpart B—Disability Ratings

38 C.F.R. § 4.100

Application of the general rating formula for diseases of the heart

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Whether or not cardiac hypertrophy or dilatation (documented by electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, or X-ray) is present and whether or not there is a need for continuous medication must be ascertained in all cases.

(b) Even if the requirement for a 10% (based on the need for continuous medication) or 30% (based on the presence of cardiac hypertrophy or dilatation) evaluation is met, METs testing is required in all cases except:

(1) When there is a medical contraindication.

(2) When a 100% evaluation can be assigned on another basis.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155) [71 FR 52460, Sept. 6, 2006, as amended at 86 FR 54093, Sept. 30, 2021; 86 FR 67654, Nov. 29, 2021]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1993–2017 · leading case: Jackson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 422 (Vet. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jackson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 422 (Vet. App. 1999). “65207-65224 (1997) (codified at 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.100 , 4.101, *425 4.102, and 4.”
Stephens v. West, 12 Vet. App. 115 (Vet. App. 1999). “See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.100 , 4.101, 4.102, and 4.”
Corpuz v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 110 (Vet. App. 1993). “See 38 C.F.R. § 4.100 (1991). Moreover, the credibility of this statement is not without doubt.”
13-11 092 (Board of Vet. App. 2017). “38 C.F.R. 4.100 (2016). Analysis As discussed in the September 2016 Board remand, the Veteran did not properly perfect his appeal for an increased rating for CAD.”
07-33 612 (Board of Vet. App. 2014). “See 38 C.F.R. § 4.100 (a)-(c). In the instant case, the schedular requirements for a rating higher than 30 percent are not met.”
11-03 165 (Board of Vet. App. 2014). “See 38 C.F.R. § 4.100 . Therefore, as the examiner did not state that METs testing was contraindicated and none of these other factors were present, the Board finds that the September 2012 VA examination is inadequate and that another remand is warranted to obtain a VA…”
97-17 063 (Board of Vet. App. 2015). “7, 2006); codified at 38 C.F.R. 4.100. The RO has considered the claim under both the old and amended rating criteria and the Veteran has been apprised of both versions of the rating criteria.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.