Diabetes decisions — 2016

The Veteran's claim is being remanded due to the need for additional information from Social Security Administration (SSA) records.

The Board has determined that a remand is necessary to obtain updated medical evidence and to schedule the appellant for an appropriate VA aid and attendance or housebound examination.

The Board denied the claim of entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death, finding that his death was not proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disability.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have memory loss or erectile dysfunction that is causally related to service-connected diabetes mellitus. The VA examiner found no significant memory difficulty/deficit and concluded that osteopenia, which was diagnosed as a result of diabetes mellitus, is less likely caused by and/or worsened by diabetes mellitus.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for type 2 diabetes mellitus as due to herbicide exposure is denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a finding of direct causation or presumptive service connection based on herbicide exposure.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's service connection claims for diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease are granted due to exposure to herbicides during his service at Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base.

The Board found that the Veteran's current hypertension and diabetes mellitus, type II were not incurred in service or related to his period of active duty. The effective date for any future grant of service connection is not specified.

The Veteran has withdrawn his appeals, and the Board does not have jurisdiction to review these appeals.

The Veteran's appeals for higher initial ratings for peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities and diabetes mellitus, type II have been dismissed due to his withdrawal of appeal.

The Board denied service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death and denied DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1318, finding that the Veteran's death was not caused by his service-connected disabilities.

The Board has granted service connection for PTSD, diabetes mellitus, type II, and a heart disability (coronary artery disease) based on presumptive exposure to herbicides due to service in the Republic of Vietnam.

The Veteran's diabetes mellitus type II is currently rated at 20 percent, the minimum rating available under VA regulations.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus and a skin disability of the lower legs, to include diabetic dermopathy or shin spots. The evidence did not establish that these conditions were related to his military service.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to conflicting medical opinions regarding the relationship between the Veteran's hypertension and his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II, and/or coronary artery disease.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, Type II Diabetes Mellitus, hypertension (secondary to diabetes), peripheral neuropathy (secondary to diabetes and/or low back disability), a bilateral eye condition (secondary to diabetes), and TDIU.

The Veteran withdrew the appeal for TDIU prior to a decision being made.

The Veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II, with erectile dysfunction and diabetic retinopathy of the right eye is being remanded due to the need for additional development.

The Board finds that the Veteran's hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and skin disability are not related to his in-service exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE). The evidence does not support a finding of service connection for these conditions.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diabetes mellitus, type II, and a low back disorder. The appeal was not about service connection at all.

The Board has remanded the case for further evidentiary development, including obtaining Social Security Administration (SSA) records. The AOJ did not provide proper notice of the unavailability of SSA records as required by regulations.