Diabetes decisions — 2000

The Board found no competent medical evidence linking the veteran's diabetes mellitus to his service, including a one-year presumptive period following separation from active duty. The claim is therefore denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for diabetes mellitus, finding that the September 4, 1997 decision was not based on new and material evidence. The effective date remains at September 4, 1997.

The Board found that the veteran's claims for service connection were not well-grounded and denied them.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has determined that the veteran's diabetes mellitus is related to his active service and grants the claim for service connection.

The veteran's disability conditions, including uncontrolled diabetes mellitus and amputation of the right leg, have rendered him unable to perform daily activities such as bathing, dressing, or toileting without assistance. The Board has determined that these conditions meet the criteria for special monthly pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes, a heart disorder, tinnitus, loss of equilibrium, eye infections, glaucoma, and prostate disorder are denied as there is no evidence to support these conditions were incurred or aggravated during service or due to exposure to radiation.

The veteran's disabilities do not render him unable to care for his daily personal needs or to protect himself from the hazards and dangers incident to his daily environment without the assistance of others, thus denying special monthly pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance.

The Board has determined that the appellant's claims for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death and DIC under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318 require additional development due to incomplete evidence.

The Board found that the veteran's claims for diabetes mellitus, gout, bilateral knee disability, bilateral forearm disability, and low back disability were not well-grounded due to lack of evidence linking these conditions to service.

The Board found that the veteran's diabetes mellitus was not caused or worsened by VA treatment, and thus denied his claim under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of a cold injury of the feet and diabetes mellitus. The RO granted increased ratings for postoperative right foot metatarsalgia with tender callosities (10%) and left foot metatarsalgia with tender callosities (10%).

The Board and the Regional Office have denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, urinary incontinence, loss of visual acuity, arthritis, obesity, and fibromas of the breast. The veteran's claims are not well-grounded.

The Board denied the veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus and a blood disorder, finding that there was no evidence linking these conditions to his military service or exposure to radiation.

The Board found that the veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and a low back disability are not well-grounded.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation of his service-connected type I diabetes mellitus, as it is currently manifested by two to three insulin injections daily and a restricted diet.

The Board found that the veteran did not have asthma, coronary artery disease and hypertension, diabetes mellitus, carpal tunnel syndrome, or a chronic gastrointestinal condition (to include ulcers and gastritis) incurred during service. The claims were denied as they do not meet the criteria for well-groundedness.

The Board found that the veteran's claim for secondary service connection for diabetes mellitus from the use of Naprosyn for treatment of his service-connected degenerative joint disease was not well-grounded.

The Board has determined that the claim of service connection for diabetes mellitus is not well grounded and therefore denied.

The veteran's loss of use of the lower extremities is not due to a service-connected disability, and he does not meet the criteria for specially adapted housing or special home adaptations grants.

The veteran's claim for special monthly pension benefits based on the need for regular aid and attendance or being housebound is currently pending. The RO has requested additional evidence and will reassess his disability ratings after further examination.