Diabetes decisions — 2009

The Veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus is currently rated at 20 percent, the minimum rating required for insulin dependence and restricted diet. The evidence does not support a higher rating as he has not experienced regulation of activities due to his DM.

The Veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II and erectile dysfunction were both denied as the evidence did not support a higher rating.

The Board has determined that further development is necessary to determine if the Veteran was exposed to herbicides during service, which would allow for presumptive service connection.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining National Guard personnel records and private treatment records.

The Board finds that the appellant has diabetes mellitus type 2, which is presumed to be due to his service in Vietnam. The Board also finds that the appellant's peripheral neuropathy of all four extremities is secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred from February 21, 2004 to February 24, 2004 were denied as the condition did not meet the criteria for emergency treatment.

The Veteran's diabetes mellitus does not require insulin or a restricted diet, and therefore warrants no higher than the initially assigned 20 percent rating.

The Veteran's claim for increased ratings for diabetes mellitus is being remanded due to an incorrect address of the supplemental statement of the case (SSOC).

The Board has determined that the Veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus and diabetic retinopathy do not warrant higher initial evaluations.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete information and need for additional development, including obtaining medical records from the Veteran's final stay at Berkshire Place Nursing Home.

The Veteran's claims for earlier effective date and higher initial ratings for diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities have been denied as his earliest possible effective dates are one year prior to his claim, May 20, 2004.

The appellant has withdrawn his appeal for the issue of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus. The case is dismissed.

The Board found that the Veteran's claimed conditions are not related to his military service and denied all of his claims.

The Veteran's conditions, while disabling, do not meet the criteria for special monthly pension benefits based on need for regular aid and attendance or by reason of being housebound.

The Veteran's non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy has not resulted in any compensable vision impairment, and the Board finds that a compensable rating is not warranted.

The Veteran's claims for increased evaluations of his service-connected diabetic polyneuropathy of the left and right lower extremities are being remanded due to the need for additional VA examinations, as well as potential referral for extraschedular evaluation.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus, and for increased ratings for scars on the scalp and right hand were denied. The Board found no evidence of diabetes mellitus in service or within one year after separation from service, nor any link between the current disabilities and service.

The Board found that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus and skin cancer were not incurred or aggravated by service, including exposure to herbicides or ionizing radiation. The evidence did not support a finding of service connection for these conditions.

The Board found no evidence of chronic vision disability in service or for many years after service, and concluded that the Veteran's current vision disability is not related to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. Therefore, the claim for service connection for vision disability as secondary to service-connected diabetes was denied.

The Board found that the Veteran's hypertension is not caused or aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II. The claim for bilateral hearing loss was also denied as there is no evidence of a current disability related to active duty.