Asthma Board decisions

The Board denied the claims for service connection for cause of death, nonservice-connected death pension benefits, and accrued benefits due to lack of evidence linking the veteran's conditions to his active service.

The veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent for bronchial asthma was denied, and his claim for a compensable rating for tinea cruris was also denied. The Board found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating for tinea cruris.

The Board found that bronchial asthma existed prior to service entrance and was not aggravated during service, thus granting the claim for service connection.

The Board found that the appellant's asthma was not incurred or aggravated during his military service and denied the claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's asthma does not meet or approximate the criteria for a rating in excess of 30 percent since September 26, 2003.

The Board has determined that the veteran's respiratory disorder, claimed as asthma, is not causally related to disease or injury during his active service, including any exposure to asbestos.

The veteran's asthma is currently rated at 10 percent, and the Board has remanded the case for further development to determine if a higher rating is warranted.

The Board has granted a 10 percent rating for hypertension, effective from the date of the decision. The veteran's asthma continues to warrant a 60 percent disability rating.

The Board has remanded the veteran's claims for additional development due to incomplete records and need for medical opinions.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a back disability and asthma, finding that there was no evidence to support these claims. The Board concluded that the veteran did not have a current disability related to his in-service service or exposure, and that any symptoms he experienced were more likely due to post-service factors.

The Board denied service connection for respiratory and joint pain disabilities, as well as bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The claims were based on direct evidence rather than presumptive exposure to a specific agent or illness.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection of bronchial asthma, finding that no formal or informal claims were received prior to February 7, 2005.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for chronic asthmatic bronchitis and entitlement to special monthly pension (SMP) on account of being in need of aid and attendance (A&A). The Board found that there was no evidence linking the claimed conditions to active duty, and thus denied both claims.

The Board has determined that a remand is required to clarify whether the veteran's pre-existing asthma was aggravated by his period of active service, and to obtain medical records for treatment since 2003.

The veteran has withdrawn his appeal for the initial compensable evaluation of the right ankle fracture and all other issues on appeal.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including verification of service dates and a VA examination to assess the likelihood that the veteran's asthma was incurred or aggravated during her active duty or ACDUTRA.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a respiratory disability and left knee arthritis, finding no evidence of such disabilities in service or within one year post-service. The diagnoses were known clinical entities not related to service.

The Board has denied service connection for asthma and granted service connection for tinnitus. The veteran's asthma was not incurred in or aggravated by active military service, while his tinnitus is as likely as not due to noise exposure in service.

The Board denied service connection for bronchitis and asthma, as well as the reopening of claims for bilateral hearing loss and hepatitis C. The veteran's current respiratory conditions are not related to his active duty service.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to failure of the veteran to attend a scheduled VA examination.