Ankle decisions — 2012

The Board found that the Veteran did not file a timely substantive appeal of the December 2009 rating decision denying service connection for bronchovascular markings, left lung, from pneumonia and lung collapse. The claim for right knee condition was granted based on resolving the benefit of doubt in favor of the Veteran.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's right ankle disorder is related to his military service, including an injury in March or April 1971. The left knee disorder issue remains pending and will be remanded for further examination and opinion.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for a travel board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the Muskogee RO.

The Veteran's claim for automobile and adaptive equipment or adaptive equipment only was denied as the medical evidence did not demonstrate any physical loss or impairment of his extremities that would warrant such benefits.

The Veteran withdrew the appeal for the claim of entitlement to service connection for flat feet during his hearing. The remaining claims are remanded for further development.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for right foot bunionectomy with arthritis and left ankle strain were denied. The current ratings of 10 percent are maintained.

The Veteran's erectile dysfunction is service-connected, but the Board finds that his unexplained joint pains are at least in equipoise with service connection. The case will be remanded for further development.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including prostate cancer and multiple cancers, do not preclude him from securing or following substantially gainful employment prior to March 7, 2008.

The Veteran's claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities was denied as his combined percentage of service-connected disabilities is less than 70% and he does not meet the threshold requirements for TDIU.

The Veteran's service-connected arthritis of both ankles is rated at 20 percent, effective from the date of this decision.

The Board has found that additional development is needed and the case is being remanded to schedule a videoconference hearing before the Board.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for additional VA examination and development of his claims, including a new rating decision on TDIU.

The Veteran's service connection claims for right knee, left knee, and left ankle disorders are denied as there is no evidence of a current disability related to his active duty service.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disorder and has granted service connection for adjustment disorder. The claims for skin cancer and PTSD remain pending.

The Veteran's left ankle disability, characterized by marked limitation of motion and pain, is currently rated at 10 percent. The Board has granted a 20 percent rating for this condition.

The Veteran's claims for increased evaluations and a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities are being remanded for additional development.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's left ankle disorder and scoliosis are related to service, with the left ankle disorder being more likely due to his military activities and the scoliosis developing during service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for increased evaluations of his service-connected left knee injury with degenerative joint disease and right ankle fracture, finding that the schedular criteria adequately described his disability.

The Veteran does not have arthritis of the hips, knees, ankles, or hands.,Service connection for these conditions is denied as there is no current disability and no evidence linking them to service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for arthritis of the right ankle and arthritis of the hips, finding that there was no evidence to support these conditions were incurred or aggravated by service.,The decision concluded that the preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that the Veteran currently suffers from either condition.