Depression decisions — 2007

The Board granted service connection for major depressive disorder secondary to the service-connected hysterectomy, but denied an earlier effective date.

The Board has determined that the veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as major depression, was not incurred in or aggravated by active military service and is not related to his service. The claim for service connection is denied.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for consideration of her claims under the criteria that was in effect prior to November 7, 1996.

The Board denied service connection for chloracne and PTSD, finding no evidence of a nexus to service or herbicide exposure. Service connection for depression was also denied as it is secondary to the veteran's diagnosed PTSD.

The Board found no evidence to support the veteran's claims for service connection for depression and PTSD, or arthritis of both knees. The claim was denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claims of service connection for various conditions, including anxiety disorder, right knee disorder, low back disorder, bilateral hip disorder, and urological disorder. The decision also addressed compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for chronic sinus infections, arthritis, balance problems, bone loss in the upper left jaw, hearing loss in the left ear, and excessive tearing of the eyes.

The Board has granted service connection for depression as secondary to the veteran's service-connected cystic acne. However, it denied service connection for schizophrenia on both a direct and secondary basis.

The Board found that the veteran does not have a diagnosis of PTSD and his depression is not service-connected. The claim for service connection for PTSD was denied, but the claim to reopen a skin disorder due to herbicide exposure in Vietnam was granted.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for service connection for rhinitis, depression, a low back condition, residuals of a cyst in the right breast, a left knee disability, and a right ankle disability are all denied.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining his Social Security Administration records.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining SSA records and scheduling a VA examination. The veteran's claims of service connection for PTSD and psychiatric disorders to include depression and personality disorder are pending, as is his claim for increased evaluation for left ankle fracture residuals.

The Board has determined that the veteran's preexisting acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, anxiety, and major depression, was aggravated by service. As a result, the claim for service connection is granted.

The Board has determined that the veteran's mood disorder with depression is related to service and grants service connection for this condition.

The Board found that the veteran's symptoms do not support a diagnosis of clinical depression and that his alleged depression is not related to service. As such, the claim for service connection for depression was denied.

The veteran's claims have been dismissed due to his death.

The Board has granted service connection for right inguinal hernia and denied service connection for depression as being secondary to diabetes mellitus.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities, including low back strain with radiculopathy and depressive disorder, are found to be sufficient by themselves to preclude him from obtaining or maintaining any form of substantially gainful employment consistent with his education and occupational background. Therefore, the claim for a TDIU is granted.

The veteran's service-connected PTSD has been rated at 30 percent since the effective date of service connection, which is not in excess of what was initially granted.

The Board denied service connection for major depressive disorder, lumbar strain, left foot/ankle disability, right knee disability, and left shoulder disability. The veteran's claim for increased rating was also denied.

The Board is remanding the case to gather more information about the appellant's condition prior to age 18, as well as her current disabilities and their impact on her ability to support herself.