Diabetes decisions — 2006
1,102 indexed Board decisions in 2006.
Badges describe the whole decision, not the outcome for every condition listed. An appeal can grant one issue and deny or remand another. Check the original decision for each issue; these outcomes do not predict your claim.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)PACT Act · July 2006
The veteran seeks service connection for type I diabetes mellitus, which he claims is related to his exposure to herbicides in Vietnam. The RO has been instructed to obtain all relevant medical records and schedule the veteran for a VA examination if necessary. If the veteran can provide evidence linking his current condition to military service, a VA examination will be arranged.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)July 2006
The Board has remanded the veteran's claims for service connection due to incomplete information and need for further examination. The veteran seeks service connection for tinnitus and diabetes mellitus type II with vision impairment, which he contends are related to his military service in Vietnam.
- Whole decision: DeniedJuly 2006
The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a bilateral wrist disorder, right ankle disorder, or low back disorder that is related to his service. The diabetes mellitus claim was denied as it is unclear if it is secondary to hypertension.
- Whole decision: DeniedJuly 2006
The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus type II due to herbicide exposure, finding that there was no evidence of herbicide exposure during service and insufficient evidence linking the current condition to service.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)July 2006
The veteran's widow seeks service connection for various conditions, including his cause of death and diabetes mellitus, colon cancer, hypertension, and metastatic cancer. The appeal is being remanded to determine if the veteran served in Vietnam or had other qualifying service that would allow for presumptive service connection due to herbicide exposure.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)July 2006
The veteran's appeal is being remanded for further medical examination to determine if he meets the criteria for SMC based on need for regular aid and attendance or housebound status, given his service-connected disabilities.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)July 2006
The veteran's claims for increased ratings and new examinations are being remanded due to the need for additional VA treatment records, medical records from a private hospital, and VA examinations.
- Whole decision: DeniedJuly 2006
The Board denied the veteran's claim for an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for diabetes mellitus, type II, with diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy. The veteran was rated at 20 percent under Diagnostic Code 7913 due to his service-connected diabetes mellitus.
- Whole decision: DeniedJuly 2006
The Board denied the veteran's claims for an initial rating greater than 10 percent for calcaneal neuropathy of the right foot and a rating greater than 20 percent for diabetes mellitus, type II.
- Whole decision: DeniedJuly 2006
The Board found that the veteran's Type 2 diabetes mellitus and residuals of shrapnel wounds to the forehead and nose were not incurred in or aggravated by his active service.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)July 2006
The Board is remanding the case for further development to determine if the veteran's diabetes was incurred during a verified period of active duty for training.
- Whole decision: DeniedJuly 2006
The Board has denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, finding that there is no evidence linking the condition to her military service.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)July 2006
The veteran's appeal is remanded to determine his eligibility for special monthly compensation (SMC) by reason of being housebound, including evaluating the severity of his service-connected impaired sphincter control. The issue of an increased rating for impaired sphincter control is also referred back to the RO.
- Whole decision: DeniedJuly 2006
The Board has determined that the veteran's diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy are not related to his hepatitis C or the interferon treatment, and thus do not qualify for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.
- Whole decision: DeniedJuly 2006
The Board found that the veteran's service-connected diabetes did not play a significant role in causing his death from metastatic melanoma. The cause of death was attributed to metastatic melanoma, which was listed as due to (or as a consequence of) diabetes on an amended death certificate.
- Whole decision: DeniedJuly 2006
The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy of both lower extremities, right ear hearing loss, and erectile dysfunction. The claim to reopen service connection for left ear hearing loss was also denied. An earlier effective date for right ear hearing loss was not granted.
- Whole decision: DeniedJuly 2006
The veteran's diabetes is currently rated as 20 percent disabling, which does not meet the criteria for a higher rating. The other conditions listed in his appeal are also evaluated based on their current manifestations and do not warrant an increased rating.
- Whole decision: GrantedJuly 2006
The veteran's diabetes mellitus, requiring insulin, a restricted diet, and regulation of activities, meets the criteria for a 40 percent disability evaluation.
- Whole decision: DismissedJuly 2006
The Board has dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's withdrawal of the appeal prior to a decision being made.
- Whole decision: DeniedJuly 2006
The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a heart disorder, diabetes, and COPD as there is no medical evidence linking these conditions to his military service.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.