Ankle decisions — 2002

The veteran's psoriatic arthritis and lumbosacral strain with herniated nucleus pulposus are rated at the maximum disability levels based on their severity.

The Board found no chronic knee, ankle, leg/shin, or hearing loss disability related to service and denied the veteran's claims.

The Board found that the veteran's post-operative appendectomy scar and left ankle fracture do not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under applicable VA disability evaluation criteria.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have current bilateral hearing loss or a left ankle disability that is related to service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims of service connection for left knee and left ankle disabilities, finding that there was no evidence to support a secondary relationship between these conditions and his service-connected right knee disability.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claimed conditions, including malaria and shell fragment wounds, were not incurred or aggravated during his military service.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for further development and consideration of his claims, including review of revised rating criteria.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for earlier effective dates for increased ratings of 10 percent each for right ankle fracture and residuals of parotid tumor removal, finding that it was not factually ascertainable that the disabilities had worsened prior to February 15, 1995.

The VA has denied the veteran's claim for an increased initial rating for his residuals of a left ankle injury, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling.

The Board denied the veteran's claims of service connection for cold injury residuals and osteoarthritis of the knees, as well as his attempt to reopen a claim for right ankle disorder. The evidence did not support these claims.

The Board granted service connection for RSD of the right foot and ankle based on new evidence received after a previous denial, but denied an earlier effective date. The claimant is currently rated at 10% for RSD of the right foot and ankle.

The Board has granted a separate compensable rating of 10% for the veteran's right ankle scar, but denied an increased rating for his right medial malleolus fracture with scar.

The Board has determined that the veteran's residuals of a fractured left ankle do not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 5271, and therefore, a zero percent (noncompensable) rating is denied.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been submitted to reopen the veteran's claims for service connection for varicose veins and a left ankle disorder. The claims are therefore denied.

The veteran seeks TDIU based on his service-connected bilateral pes planus. The RO should adjudicate claims for service connection for a knee disorder and right ankle instability secondary to the service-connected flat feet, as well as remand the TDIU claim.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for a higher disability rating for his left tibia and fibula fracture, currently rated at 20 percent. The appeal is based on current manifestations of arthritis with pain and limited motion.

The Board has determined that the veteran's preexisting bilateral pes planus and right knee disability, diagnosed as genu varum, did not worsen during service beyond its normal progression. The right ankle disability is not currently shown to be present.

The Board has granted a 10 percent evaluation for the veteran's right ankle disability, finding that it meets the criteria under Diagnostic Code 5271. The veteran is not entitled to an increased rating as his symptoms do not warrant a higher evaluation.

The Board has granted service connection for a right ankle disability and headaches, finding that the veteran's current conditions are related to his military service.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations for PTSD and left leg shrapnel fragment wound residuals, as well as the claim for TDIU from June 1998 to July 2001 were denied. The low back disability claim was also denied due to lack of new and material evidence.