BRONCHIAL ASTHMA

Summary

The veteran, who served in the U.S. Navy from December 1985 to December 1989, appeals the denial of an increased disability evaluation for his service-connected asthma. The veteran was previously awarded service connection for asthma with a 10 percent disability rating, effective November 4, 2023. The veteran believes this rating is inadequate and seeks a higher evaluation. The Board reviewed the evidence, including the veteran's testimony and a March 2025 VA respiratory examination report with pulmonary function tests (PFTs). The Board noted the veteran uses an inhaler intermittently but does not require daily medication, urgent treatment, or systemic corticosteroids. The VA PFT results, both pre- and post-bronchodilator, were consistent with the criteria for a 10 percent disability rating under Diagnostic Code 6602. The Board found the VA examiner's report to be probative and that the evidence did not support a rating higher than 10 percent. The veteran's assertion that the compensation is inadequate was acknowledged, but the Board must adhere to the rating schedule based on objective medical findings. Therefore, the claim for an increased disability evaluation for asthma is denied.

Rationale

Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) are used to rate asthma under DC 6602.; Veteran's PFT results (FEV-1/FVC 79.2% predicted post-bronchodilator) align with 10% rating criteria.; Veteran does not require daily medication, urgent treatment, or systemic corticosteroids.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040010
Decision Date: 04/29/26	Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 251021-601329
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for asthma, currently rated as 10 percent disabling, is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's asthma is manifested by a FEV-1/FVC of 71- to 80- percent.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for a disability evaluation in excess of 10 percent for asthma have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.321, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.96, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6602.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from December 1985 to December 1989.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  

The Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) creates a new framework for Veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review. The AMA became effective on February 19, 2019.  38 C.F.R. § 3.2400(a)(1).  The rating decision in this case was issued after February 19, 2019; thus, the AMA framework applies.

In an April 9, 2025 rating decision, in pertinent part, the AOJ awarded the Veteran service connection for asthma.  A 10 percent disability evaluation was assigned, effective November 4, 2023.  The Veteran was notified of this decision on April 11, 2025.  

The Veteran then appealed the April 9, 2025 rating decision to the Board by filing a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal on October 21, 2025.  The Veteran requested Evidence Submission review by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board), which permitted the Veteran 90 days to submit additional evidence in support of his claim from the date of receipt of the VA Form 10182.  On December 9, 2025, the Board acknowledged receipt of the Veteran's Board Appeal request (VA Form 10182).  

Duties to Notify and Assist

Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist.  See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument).

?

Increased Rating

Disability evaluations are determined by application of the criteria set forth in the VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which is based on average impairment in earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4.  An evaluation of the level of disability present must also include consideration of the functional impairment of the Veteran's ability to engage in ordinary activities, including employment.  38 C.F.R. § 4.10.  After careful consideration of the evidence, any reasonable doubt remaining is resolved in favor of the Veteran.  38 C.F.R. § 4.3.  

Separate evaluations may be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts found. In other words, the evaluations may be staged.  Staged ratings are appropriate for any rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods during the appeal period where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings.  Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007).  

1. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for asthma, currently rated as 10 percent disabling.

The Veteran's asthma is rated as 10 percent disabling pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6602.  

Diagnostic Code 6602 rates the severity of bronchial asthma based primarily on objective numerical results of pulmonary function testing (PFT).  Bronchial asthma is evaluated using the following tests: (1) Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (
 exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings.  Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007).  

1. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for asthma, currently rated as 10 percent disabling.

The Veteran's asthma is rated as 10 percent disabling pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6602.  

Diagnostic Code 6602 rates the severity of bronchial asthma based primarily on objective numerical results of pulmonary function testing (PFT).  Bronchial asthma is evaluated using the following tests: (1) Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV-1) and (2) the ratio of FEV-1 to Forced Vital Capacity (FEV-1/FVC).  See 38 C.F.R. § 4.97.   

Under Diagnostic Code 6602, a 10 percent evaluation is warranted for FEV-1 of 71 to 80 percent predicted, FEV-1/FVC of 71 to 80 percent, or intermittent inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy.  A 30 percent disability evaluation is assigned where there is FEV-1 of 56 to 70 percent predicted, FEV-1/FVC of 56 to 70 percent, or daily inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy.  A 60 percent rating is assigned for an FEV-1 of 40 to 55 percent predicted, or FEV-1/FVC of 40 to 55 percent, or at least monthly visits to a physician for required care of exacerbations, or intermittent (at least 3 times per year) course of systemic (oral or parenteral) corticosteroids.   A maximum 100 percent rating is assigned under Diagnostic Code 6602 for bronchial asthma with an FEV-1of less than 40 percent predicted, or FEV-1/FVC less than 40 percent, or more than 1 attack per week with episodes of respiratory failure, or requires daily use of systemic (oral or parenteral) high dose corticosteroids or immunosuppressive medications.  See 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6602.

The Board notes that 38 C.F.R. § 4.96 provides that when applying Diagnostic Codes 6600, 6603, 6604, 6825-6833, and 6840 - 6845, pulmonary function tests are required except in certain circumstances specified in 38 C.F.R. § 4.96(d). 

Pulmonary function test results are generally reported before and after the administration of bronchodilator therapy.  VA regulations instruct that post-bronchodilator results be used when considering PFT criteria for ratings under Diagnostic Codes 6600, 6603, 6604, 6825 - 6833, and 6840 - 6845.  See 38 C.F.R. § 4.96(d)(4).  There are no regulations identifying whether pre- or post-bronchodilator results should be used when determining disability ratings under Diagnostic Code 6602.  As 38 C.F.R. § 4.96(d)(4) does not explicitly apply to Diagnostic Code 6602, the Board will use the pulmonary function test results that allow the most favorable disability rating to the Veteran. 

After a review of all the evidence, lay and medical, the Board finds that the evidence demonstrates that the Veteran's service-connected asthma is most consistent with the criteria for the currently assigned 10 percent disability evaluation.  

In this regard, the clinical evidence of record, including the March 2025 VA respiratory examination report, as well as the March 2025 VA PFT test results, demonstrate pulmonary function test results consistent with a 10 percent disability evaluation.  To this point, the Board observes that pulmonary function testing at the March 2025 VA examination was FVC at 79 percent predicted pre-bronchodilator; FEV-1 at 83 percent predicted pre-bronchodilator; and FEV-1/FVC at 79.2 percent predicted pre-bronchodilator.  According to the March 2025 VA examination report, post-bronchodilator pulmonary function testing at the VA examination was FVC at 83 percent predicted; FEV-1 at 87 percent predicted; and FEV-1/FVC at 79.2 percent predicted.  The VA examiner noted that the FEV-1 test results most accurately reflect the Veteran's disability.  

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran uses an inhalational bronchodilator; the Veteran reports
 percent predicted pre-bronchodilator; FEV-1 at 83 percent predicted pre-bronchodilator; and FEV-1/FVC at 79.2 percent predicted pre-bronchodilator.  According to the March 2025 VA examination report, post-bronchodilator pulmonary function testing at the VA examination was FVC at 83 percent predicted; FEV-1 at 87 percent predicted; and FEV-1/FVC at 79.2 percent predicted.  The VA examiner noted that the FEV-1 test results most accurately reflect the Veteran's disability.  

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran uses an inhalational bronchodilator; the Veteran reports using the inhaler intermittently.  Nonetheless, the March 2025 VA examination report indicates that the Veteran's service-connected asthma is not productive of antibiotic use, outpatient oxygen therapy, or corticosteroids.  The Veteran did not report requiring physician visits for exacerbations, or a history of respiratory failure or incapacitating episodes.  There is also no evidence of any cardiopulmonary complications attributable to his lung condition.  Likewise, the Board observes that VA treatment records reflect a history of asthma, but do not reflect that the Veteran required urgent treatment for his asthma during the rating period on appeal.

The Board also acknowledges that, according to the Veteran, his service-connected asthma is not adequately compensated by the 10 percent disability rating, and that he should be granted a higher disability rating.  However, although the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms, he is not, however, competent to identify a specific level of disability according to the appropriate diagnostic code.  More competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the Veteran's service-connected asthma was provided by the VA examiner who examined him and who rendered pertinent opinions in conjunction with the evaluation; the Board notes that the VA examiner found that the Veteran's service-connected asthma is as previously characterized, and the Veteran has not alleged that his symptoms are worse than at the VA examination.  

Likewise, the Board again points out that the Veteran has not asserted that his symptoms are worsening, just that he feels that the level of compensation for his service-connected asthma is inadequate.  The medical findings (as provided in the March 2025 VA examination report) directly address the criteria under which the disability is evaluated.  As such, the Board finds this report to be probative.  Regardless, the Board must follow the rating schedule which evaluates asthma on the results of pulmonary function tests (or other criteria as described above).  

Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence does not support the assignment of a disability evaluation in excess of 10 percent for his asthma for the entire appeal period.  The claim for an increased disability evaluation is denied.

 

 

GAYLE STROMMEN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Brokowsky, H.

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.