Depression decisions — 2006

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for chronic dizziness, blurred vision, low back disability, depression, polydrug dependence, and neuroma. The Board found no evidence of a current disability related to these conditions.

The veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, is being remanded due to the need for further development and examination.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection and increased ratings, finding no current diagnosed hip condition. The left knee claim remains in appellate status due to a lack of a Statement of the Case.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his major depressive disorder, lumbar spine disability, and migraine headaches. The claim for a rating in excess of 50 percent for migraine headaches was dismissed due to the veteran's withdrawal.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for a videoconference hearing before the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

The veteran's depression is found to be proximately due to or the result of her service-connected disabilities, including migraine headaches and other conditions. She is also granted a TDIU based on her inability to secure and follow substantially gainful employment due to her service-connected disabilities.

The veteran's claims for service connection for hearing loss, dizziness, and a psychiatric disorder have been denied. The case is remanded to obtain additional medical records and to schedule the veteran for an examination.

The Board found that the veteran's adjustment disorder and depression with psychotic features do not meet the criteria for a higher rating than 70 percent.

The Board denied service connection for a cardiovascular disability and TDIU due to the lack of evidence linking these conditions to service or service-connected disabilities.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development of his medical records and a determination on whether he is permanently disabled to the extent that he qualifies for Dependents' Educational Assistance under Chapter 35 of title 38 of the United States Code.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection for a major depressive disorder, finding that the earliest communication of record was on March 20, 2002, which is later than when entitlement arose based on medical evidence showing symptoms as early as September 1998 and diagnosis in August 1999.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for depression and residuals of a left big toe injury, finding no evidence to support these claims.

The VA Board of Veterans' Appeals found that the veteran does not have PTSD resulting from military service and denied her claim for service connection.

The Board has granted the appellant's claim for service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability, finding that it is due to noise exposure in service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased disability ratings, finding that the evidence did not support a higher rating for his disfiguring scars of the lips and nose, other scars on the right cheek and eyebrows, deformity of the nose with obstruction of the right naris, sensory and motor loss of the superior lip area, or depression.

The Board has remanded the case to attempt to obtain the veteran's service medical records, including those from his second period of military service. The claim for service connection for multiple myeloma is also being remanded.

The veteran's claims for service connection have been remanded due to the need for additional development and compliance with VCAA requirements.

The Board denied service connection for PTSD and right ear hearing loss, but granted new and material evidence to reopen the left knee disability claim. The veteran's depression is not considered PTSD.

The Board has remanded the case due to failure to appear for a scheduled video conference hearing.

The veteran's claim for reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at the Mercy Medical Center on February 4, 2004 was denied as there was no prior authorization and his condition was not clinically emergent to a point that seeking treatment at the VAMC would have been feasible.