Allergic rhinitis decisions — 2009

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including a VA examination to address the etiology of her claimed respiratory and sinus conditions as related to exposures in service.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities have been evaluated, and the appeal is denied as there are no new or material issues to reopen. The current evaluations for each condition remain unchanged.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for allergic rhinitis and low back disability. The evidence does not establish a nexus between these conditions and active duty.

The Veteran's service connection claims for degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine; headaches; and allergic rhinitis are all granted.

The Veteran's allergic rhinitis, with a large nasal polyp causing total obstruction when lying down on his side, meets the criteria for a 30 percent rating.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and to schedule a videoconference hearing.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for allergic rhinitis, tendonitis and synovitis of the first metacarpal joint (right hand), tendonitis and synovitis of the first metacarpal joint (left hand), bilateral pes planus, and low back disability have been denied. The Board found no evidence that these conditions meet the criteria for a compensable rating at any time.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the lack of recent medical records and additional notice under VCAA.

The Veteran's claims for initial disability ratings or service connection were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for an initial compensable rating or higher for his GERD with hiatal hernia, DJD of the right great toe metatarsophalangeal joints with cheilectomy right great toe, and DJD of the left great toe metatarsophalangeal joints and osteotomy left second toe. The Veteran's claims for service connection were also denied.

The Board denied a claim for an initial compensable evaluation for chronic perennial rhinitis, finding that the Veteran's symptoms did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under VA disability rating criteria.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to comply with the Court's June 2004 decision, which found that VA had failed to provide proper notice. Additional development is needed for compliance with VA's duty to assist and notify.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not meet the criteria for service connection for any of the conditions listed in his claims. The VA made all reasonable efforts to assist him, but he failed to report for scheduled examinations and missed a hearing.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection have been denied. The appeal is pending in some cases, while others are denied outright.

The Veteran's PTSD was granted and assigned a 50 percent evaluation for the period prior to June 1, 2006.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings were denied. The Board found that the criteria for a higher rating under the old and new rating criteria did not meet the requirements for an increase to the next higher level (30 percent).

The Veteran withdrew his appeal regarding a compensable evaluation for chronic rhinitis with deviated nasal septum from July 30, 2004 to present.

The Board has determined that the appellant's claims for service connection for bronchitis, rhinitis, and sleep apnea are denied as there is no evidence of these conditions during service or a link to service.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining service treatment records and VA/privately obtained medical records. The appellant's claims will be reconsidered based on the new evidence.

The Veteran's claims of service connection for allergic rhinitis, bilateral hearing loss, and tinnitus are being remanded due to the need for additional medical records and examinations.

The veteran's requests to reopen claims for service connection for asthma, sleep apnea, sinusitis, and allergic rhinitis were denied as new and material evidence was not presented.