Asthma decisions — 2017

The Veteran's asthma, T4 fracture and C2 fracture have not been found to warrant a higher rating under the applicable VA rating criteria.

The Board has granted the Veteran's request to reopen his claim for service connection for asthma with bronchitis, and is now considering whether he can establish service connection under a direct theory of entitlement. The issue of secondary service connection due to OSA remains pending.

The Board found that the Veteran's allergies clearly and unmistakably pre-existed service, and there is no clear and unmistakable evidence of aggravation during service. Therefore, the claim for service connection for allergies was denied.

The Veteran's asthma was rated at 30 percent prior to July 15, 2012. Since then, the evidence shows improvement and a 60 percent rating is granted for this period. For the period since July 15, 2012, a 30 percent rating is assigned. The Veteran's TDIU claim was also granted.

The Veteran's bilateral pes planus was found to have been aggravated by service, while asthma and bronchiectasis were determined not to be related to service.

The Veteran's asthma has been rated at 30 percent since March 1999, and the current evidence does not support a higher rating.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's asthma was incurred in service and granted service connection for this condition.

The Board denied service connection for a headache disability in February 2008, finding no evidence of chronic headaches during or after service. The Veteran's claim was reopened and the issue of service connection for bronchial asthma due to asbestos exposure was also denied.,There is no evidence of a chronic headache disability during service, and the Board found that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis of bronchial asthma related to service.

The Veteran's service connection claims for allergies, asthma, muscle and joint weakness and pain, and esophagus disability have been granted as direct service connection. The conditions are not secondary to his service-connected ulcerative colitis.

The Veteran does not have a respiratory disability that is related to his military service, and thus the claim for service connection for asthma has been denied.

The Veteran's migraine headaches were not rated higher than the current 30 percent assigned.,His left foot bunion with pes planus was rated at 30 percent prior to August 14, 2015 and his bilateral flat feet are currently rated at 30 percent from that date.

The Board has ordered additional development to obtain medical records from the Appellant's identified providers. The case will be remanded for further review after these records are obtained.

The Veteran's appeal has been withdrawn and the case is dismissed as there are no remaining issues for review.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claim of service connection for COPD, but further development is needed to address his respiratory disabilities and other claims.

The Veteran's claim for a higher initial rating for mechanical low back pain with facet arthropathy at L5-S1 was denied, but the Board granted a higher 40 percent rating effective October 18, 2012. The TDIU issue is also granted.

The Veteran's asthma evaluation is being remanded for additional development and clarification.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's respiratory disorders, including sarcoidosis, obstructive sleep apnea, and asthma, are not related to his active duty service, including any asbestos exposure.

The Board finds that the Veteran's son, R.J., was incapable of self-support by reason of asthma prior to attaining 18 years old. However, evidence shows improvement in his condition such that he is now capable of self-support.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's pre-existing asthma did not become aggravated by service, and thus cannot establish service connection for a chronic respiratory disorder to include asthma.

The Board has determined that the requested VA examinations were inadequate and not in compliance with the June 2014 Remand directives. The case is therefore REMANDED for further development.