Allergic rhinitis Board decisions

The Veteran is seeking an initial higher rating for his service-connected allergic rhinitis and sinusitis. The case has been remanded due to the need for additional VA treatment records and a new examination.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining medical records from his time in Japan and requesting an opinion on the etiology of his respiratory conditions.

The Veteran's service-connected allergic rhinitis with anosmia is rated at 10 percent, the maximum under Diagnostic Code 6275. The Board finds no basis to grant a higher rating or separate ratings for any other conditions.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities have not worsened to the point that he is unable to perform the duties of his Master's Degree in Business Administration, and the occupation has not been found unsuitable due to his abilities and employment handicap. The Veteran has failed to cooperate with employment placement efforts.

The Veteran's claim for nonservice-connected pension is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining private medical records and VA treatment records. The Veteran will also undergo a VA examination to determine the severity of his disabilities.

The Board found that the Veteran's current respiratory disorders, sinusitis and chronic rhinitis are not related to his active duty service.

The Veteran's claims for higher ratings for allergic rhinitis, shin splints, and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine have been denied. The evidence does not support a compensable rating for any of these conditions.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for further development due to inadequate VA examination and new evidence submitted by the Veteran.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including obtaining SSA records and addressing the possibility of a total rating due to unemployability.

The Veteran's service records show multiple instances of upper respiratory symptoms and disorders, including sinusitis. The Board finds that the evidence is in equipoise as to whether these conditions are related to his military service.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed sinusitis. The Veteran is required to undergo a VA examination for clarification.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities have precluded him from engaging in substantially gainful employment during the entire appellate period, without regard to age or impact of nonservice-connected disabilities.

The Veteran's perennial allergic rhinitis with chronic postnasal drip is currently evaluated as noncompensable under Diagnostic Code 6522. The disability does not meet the criteria for a compensable rating based on obstruction or polyps.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for PTSD, rhinitis (claimed as sinusitis and nasal polyps), and tension headaches (claimed as migraine headaches) are being remanded due to the need for additional examinations and development of records.

The Veteran's sinusitis and allergic rhinitis have been granted service connection. The issues regarding PTSD ratings remain pending.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD was denied, but his reduction in disability rating from 30% to 0% for chronic sinusitis with allergic rhinitis was granted. The appeal is mixed as it includes both a denial and a grant of benefits.

The Veteran's service-connected seasonal allergic rhinitis/sinusitis was rated at 10 percent before February 11, 2008 and increased to 30 percent effective February 11, 2008.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA examination reports and SSA records.

The Veteran's rhinitis was manifested by nasal congestion with a polyp beginning February 22, 2006. The Board found that the criteria for an initial rating of 30 percent for his service-connected rhinitis have been met beginning February 22, 2006.

The Veteran's claim for benefits based on his dependent child's continued education at an approved educational institution from her 18th birthday was denied due to the failure to submit timely notice of such attendance.