Chronic bronchitis Board decisions

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for sinus bradycardia, residuals of a left knee strain, bronchitis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for cause of death and entitlement to accrued benefits, finding that there was no evidence linking any of the claimed conditions to active service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an earlier effective date for a 60% rating for bronchitis with reactive airway disease due to chlorine gas exposure and for TDIU, finding that no earlier effective dates were factually ascertainable.

The Board found no evidence of asbestosis or a current respiratory disorder related to asbestos exposure during service. The veteran's bronchitis was not shown to be secondary to his service-connected left wrist disorder and is considered unrelated to service.

The Board denied the veteran's request to reopen his claim for service connection for bronchitis, finding that the new evidence submitted did not establish a relationship between his in-service pneumonia and any current disability.

The veteran's claims for service connection for irritable bowel syndrome and chronic bronchitis, as well as the propriety of severing his skin disability were denied by the RO.

The veteran's unauthorized medical treatment at Johnston Memorial Hospital from January 25 to January 26, 2000 was denied reimbursement by VA because the condition had stabilized and transfer to a VA facility could have been made on January 24, 2000.

The Board dismissed the veteran's claim for service connection for emphysema as untimely filed, and the issue of an increased evaluation for bronchitis is remanded.

The Board denied increased ratings for laceration of the scalp and bronchitis, and did not address the TDIU claim due to its interdependence with the other issues.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a chronic respiratory disorder, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis secondary to his service-connected inactive tuberculosis. The decision was based on the evidence at that time which did not support a causal relationship between the current condition and his service-connected tuberculosis.

The Board found that the veteran's COPD is not proximately due to his service-connected pulmonary tuberculosis. The issue of whether bronchitis is secondary to service-connected pulmonary tuberculosis was remanded for further development.

The Board finds that the veteran's chronic respiratory disability did not begin during service and is not related to any incident of service, including exposure to Persian Gulf War conditions.

The veteran's deviated nasal septum and sinusitis are found to be related to service, while his mitral valve prolapse is not. The respiratory disability (bronchitis) is also found to be related to service.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development and consideration of his claims due to changes in the law.

The VA determined that the veteran's pulmonary asbestosis with a history of bronchitis is currently rated at 30 percent, and does not meet the criteria for an increased rating.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the veteran's death, and no service connection was granted for bronchitis or degenerative arthritis.

The Board has granted a 30% evaluation for chronic bronchitis from October 7, 1996. The claim for increased rating of sinusitis is remanded due to the need for additional medical examination.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claims for service connection for bipolar disorder and bronchitis, to include asthma. The VA examiner concluded that the veteran's current mild bronchitis with an asthmatic component is related to his in-service disease.

The Board has determined that the veteran's obstructive lung disease to include emphysema and bronchitis is not service-connected, as it was not caused by mustard gas exposure during his military service.

The Board has determined that the appellant requires regular aid and attendance due to her disabilities, which qualifies her for special monthly pension based on this need.