What is the VA rating for HIV-Related Illness?

The 100 percent tier's 'recurrent opportunistic infections (see Note 3)' language is governed entirely by Note 3's own closed, named list -- not by a dedicated exam form's broader checklist.

• Note 3's list, verbatim: candidiasis of the bronchi, trachea, esophagus, or lungs; invasive cervical cancer; coccidioidomycosis; cryptococcosis; cryptosporidiosis; cytomegalovirus (particularly CMV retinitis); HIV-related encephalopathy; herpes simplex-chronic ulcers for greater than one month, or bronchitis, pneumonia, or esophagitis; histoplasmosis; isosporiasis (chronic intestinal); Kaposi's sarcoma; lymphoma; mycobacterium avium complex; tuberculosis; pneumocystis jirovecii (carinii) pneumonia; pneumonia, recurrent; progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy; salmonella septicemia, recurrent; toxoplasmosis of the brain; and wasting syndrome due to HIV.
• This hub's 100 percent criterion is built strictly from this list -- not from the dedicated HIV DBQ's own, differently-scoped opportunistic-infection checklist (see NHD-6 below), which includes items Note 3 does not name and omits several Note 3 does name.
• Note 3 is titled as an opportunistic-infections list, yet its own text includes 3 items that are neoplasms, not infections: invasive cervical cancer, Kaposi's sarcoma, and lymphoma. See NHD-2 below for how this hub handles the 60 percent tier's separate 'neoplasm' language in light of that overlap.

Records to review: Infectious disease specialist treatment records; Documentation of a specific Note 3-listed diagnosis.

DC 6351's 100 percent tier also reaches 'secondary diseases affecting multiple body systems,' with no closed, enumerable list of which diseases or systems qualify.

• Unlike the opportunistic-infection path, which is anchored to Note 3's named list, this path has no defined boundary in the regulation's own text.
• This hub asks directly whether the record documents secondary diseases affecting multiple body systems, and computes the 100 percent tier from a 'Yes' answer -- it does not attempt to build or infer a closed list of qualifying diseases or systems.
• This is the same open-ended-disclosure treatment already used for Lupus's own comparable Note (see the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus hub).

Records to review: Records documenting findings affecting multiple body systems as a result of AIDS.

It is genuinely unclear whether the 60 percent tier's 'AIDS-related opportunistic infection or neoplasm' limits 'neoplasm' to Note 3's 3 named cancers, or extends to any AIDS-associated malignancy.

• Note 3 names exactly 3 neoplasms among its otherwise infection-focused list: invasive cervical cancer, Kaposi's sarcoma, and lymphoma.
• The 60 percent tier's own text does not say 'neoplasm (see Note 3)' -- it simply says 'neoplasm,' without a cross-reference, unlike the 100 percent tier's explicit Note 3 pointer for infections.
• Both readings are disclosed here, side by side, rather than one being silently chosen: this hub computes the 60 percent tier using the plain, inclusive reading (any AIDS-associated neoplasm), not narrowed to only the 3 named in Note 3.

Records to review: Oncology records confirming an AIDS-associated neoplasm diagnosis.

DC 6351's 10 percent tier lists four findings separated by semicolons, and the regulation's punctuation does not resolve whether they combine or stand independently.

• One reading: HIV-related constitutional symptoms, a T4 count of 200-500, and medication use must all be documented together, with depression/memory-loss as a separate, independent alternative.
• Another reading: each of the four semicolon-separated clauses is independently sufficient on its own.
• The dedicated HIV DBQ resolves this its own way -- merging the T4-range and medication-use findings into one combined checkbox, kept separate from two distinct depression/memory-loss checkboxes. Per this repository's standing rule, a DBQ's own interpretive convention is corroborating context, never authoritative over ambiguous regulatory text.
• This hub computes the 10 percent tier using the more literal reading: any one of the four clauses, documented alone, is treated as sufficient. The stricter all-three-together reading is disclosed here as a real alternative, not silently dropped.

Records to review: Records documenting any of: HIV-related constitutional symptoms, T4 count 200-500, approved-medication use, or depression/memory loss with employment limitations.

DC 6351's Note 2 allows separate ratings for diagnosed psychiatric illness, CNS manifestations, opportunistic infections, and neoplasms under other diagnostic codes, if that yields a higher overall evaluation and findings don't overlap with this table.

• The Note reads: diagnosed psychiatric illness, central nervous system manifestations, opportunistic infections, and neoplasms may be rated separately under the appropriate diagnostic codes if a higher overall evaluation results, provided the disability symptoms do not overlap with evaluations otherwise assignable above.
• The regulation names four categories but no specific destination diagnostic codes -- RatingScope does not guess which code applies or auto-combine a result.
• This hub instead points to the relevant existing RatingScope hubs by category: diagnosed psychiatric illness (Mental Health hub), central nervous system manifestations (Organic CNS Diseases hub), respiratory opportunistic infections such as candidiasis of the lungs or tuberculosis (Infectious Diseases hub), skin manifestations such as Kaposi's sarcoma or chronic herpes ulcers (Skin Conditions hub), gastrointestinal findings such as chronic esophagitis or wasting (Crohn's Disease / Undifferentiated IBD hub), and lymphoma (Hemic and Lymphatic Systems hub).
• RatingScope does not compute this cross-system comparison or combine findings across hubs -- it is disclosed as a genuine alternative rating path, the same treatment already used for Lupus's own comparable cross-system Note.

Records to review: Mental health treatment records; Neurological treatment records; Records documenting a specific opportunistic infection or neoplasm and the body system it affects.

DC 6351 uses 'pathological weight loss' (60 percent tier) and 'progressive weight loss' (100 percent tier) without defining either numerically, and does not cross-reference 38 CFR 4.112's digestive-system weight-loss definition.

• Several other Part 4 sections define weight loss numerically (for example, as a percentage of baseline body weight). DC 6351's own text does neither.
• This hub asks directly whether pathological or progressive weight loss is documented in the record, rather than inferring or requiring a specific numeric threshold that the regulation itself does not state.

Records to review: Weight history documentation in treatment records.

VA's dedicated HIV-Related Illnesses exam form (DBQ) includes checklist items that do not appear anywhere in DC 6351's own published criteria. RatingScope builds only from the regulation's own text.

• The exam form's 30 percent-level checklist includes 'Hairy cell leukoplakia' and 'Oral candidiasis' -- recognized clinical markers of early HIV progression, but not named anywhere in DC 6351's own tiers or Notes.
• The exam form's own opportunistic-infection checklist is materially different from Note 3's enumerated list: it includes conditions Note 3 does not name (for example, hepatitis, varicella zoster virus, neurosyphilis) and omits several Note 3 does name (for example, invasive cervical cancer, coccidioidomycosis, histoplasmosis, Kaposi's sarcoma).
• This hub does not treat either of these exam-form-only items as a qualifying finding for any tier. Only Note 3's own enumerated list, and the CFR's own tier text, are used -- consistent with this repository's standing rule that a DBQ's own content is corroborating context, never a substitute for the regulation's own words.

Records to review: The regulation's own DC 6351 text, cross-checked against, not replaced by, the dedicated exam form.