Diabetes decisions — 2004

The Board found no evidence of service connection for diabetes mellitus or skin cancer, and denied the veteran's claims.

The Board has noted references in the claims file indicating possible service in Vietnam, which could affect the veteran's claim for diabetes mellitus. The case is being remanded to pursue additional development and review of evidence.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations and service connection for hearing loss, diabetic polyneuropathy of the legs, and surgical residuals of the right knee were denied. The Board found no evidence to support a finding that any current disabilities are related to military service.

The VA denied the claim for DIC under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 because the evidence does not show that the veteran's death resulted from carelessness, negligence, or lack of proper skill on the part of VA in providing medical treatment.

The veteran claims service connection for diabetes mellitus, which he believes is related to his exposure to herbicides during service in Guam. The claim is being remanded due to the need for additional development and verification of the veteran's alleged service in Guam.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and conducting examinations to determine if service connection can be established for the veteran's conditions.

The veteran's diabetes mellitus was initially rated at 40 percent prior to March 1, 2004. The Board found that the evidence did not support a higher rating based on insulin use or regulation of activities.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus, residuals of stroke, kidney disorder, and prostate disorder as secondary to his service-connected psychoneurosis (anxiety and conversion).

The Board found that diabetes mellitus was not incurred or aggravated during the appellant's period of ACDUTRA and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development, including obtaining additional medical records and conducting a VA examination.

The VA granted a 20 percent rating for diabetes mellitus, effective July 9, 2001.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen his previously denied claim.

The Board has remanded the case for further development to verify if the veteran served ashore in Vietnam and collected mail, which could potentially establish herbicide exposure.

The Board has remanded the case due to uncertainty regarding whether the veteran served in Vietnam during the Vietnam era, which is crucial for determining presumptive service connection for diabetes mellitus type II.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for type-II diabetes mellitus, finding that it was not incurred or aggravated during active service and not related to any in-service exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for diabetes mellitus with onychomycosis and peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities, finding that the evidence did not meet the criteria for higher disability ratings.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus II with sensorimotor polyneuropathy, finding that it was not incurred in or aggravated by his active duty service and could not be presumed to have been caused by exposure to herbicides.

The veteran's initial evaluation for diabetic retinopathy was granted at 10 percent, which is the maximum schedular rating available under Diagnostic Code 6011. The Board found that his eye disability warranted a 10 percent evaluation based on hemorrhages in both eyes.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to incomplete evidence and need for additional VA medical examinations.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, finding that it was not incurred in or aggravated by his military service and could not be presumed due to Agent Orange exposure. The veteran served aboard an aircraft carrier off the coast of Vietnam but did not set foot on land there.