Diabetes decisions — 2004

The Board has granted the appellant's claim for an effective date of May 8, 2001 for service connection of diabetes mellitus type II associated with herbicide exposure.

The veteran's claims for service connection for diabetic retinopathy, tinnitus, hearing loss, vertigo, arthritis of the right elbow, and hypertension were all denied. The Board found no evidence linking these conditions to active service.

The Board found no evidence of service connection for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or congestive heart failure due to lack of in-service diagnosis and no credible exposure to Agent Orange or asbestos. The veteran's claims were denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for SMP based on the need for A&A or housebound status, finding that he did not meet the criteria for either benefit. The issue of reducing his income for pension purposes was remanded to the RO.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II as due to herbicide exposure in Vietnam. The evidence did not show a current diagnosis of diabetes.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and consideration of issues related to service connection for diabetes mellitus, skin disorder, and psychiatric disorder due to Agent Orange exposure. The rating for lumbar myositis remains at 20 percent, while a compensable rating is not warranted for duodenal ulcer disease.

The Board has granted service connection for right eye diabetic retinopathy as it is proximately due to the already service-connected diabetes mellitus.

The Board has determined that the veteran's diabetes mellitus is not related to his military service and cannot be presumed due to herbicide exposure. As a result, the claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus is denied.

The Board has granted service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, attributing it to his service-connected psychiatric disability.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for service connection for the cause of her husband's death, concluding that his service-connected disabilities did not contribute to his cardiovascular disease and subsequent death.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development of his claims, including obtaining private medical records and VA examination reports.

The veteran's claims for diabetes mellitus, type II; syringomyelia from C2 to T8; tetraplegia; neurogenic bladder; neurogenic bowel; and hyperlipidemia were all denied as there is no evidence of current disabilities or service connection via the Agent Orange presumption.

The veteran's hypertension and erectile dysfunction have been granted service connection as secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II. However, the veteran's claim for an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for diabetes mellitus, type II, has been denied.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected disabilities did not contribute to his death, and there was no evidence of a service connection for the cause of death. The Board denied the claim.

The veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, which is presumed to be due to herbicide exposure during his Vietnam service, has been remanded due to the need to locate and verify his unit records from December 1970 to July 1971.

The Board has established service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder due to mustard gas exposure. The veteran's diabetes mellitus is presumed to be related to his military service, specifically his exposure to mustard gas during World War II.

The Board has reopened the claim for service connection of a back injury, but denied claims for other conditions due to lack of evidence linking them to military service.

The Board has remanded the case due to procedural errors in notifying the appellant of his rights and responsibilities under the VCAA. The claim will be readjudicated after proper notification is provided.

The veteran's death was attributed to multiple conditions, including chronic renal failure and atrial fibrillation. The RO is instructed to investigate whether the veteran's experiences during World War II contributed to these conditions.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for special monthly pension based on the need for aid and attendance due to lack of evidence showing he is in need of regular aid and attendance.