Diabetes Board decisions

The Board found that the veteran's left hip degenerative arthritis did not develop as a result of service-connected conditions and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board found that the veteran's death was not caused by VA care or treatment, and thus denied DIC under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations for diabetes mellitus and bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a finding of activity regulation required due to diabetes, and thus no higher evaluation could be assigned.

The Board has determined that further development is required for the veteran's claims, including a VA eye examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral pterygium and to provide an opinion on whether any glaucoma found is related to in-service herbicide exposure or diabetes mellitus.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities, including diabetes mellitus and its complications, render him in need of regular aid and attendance due to his poor balance caused by decreased eyesight and impaired depth perception, as well as weakness and numbness in his extremities. The Board finds that he is unable to function without supervision and assistance.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities result in the need for regular aid and attendance of another person, which has been granted.

The veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus type II, including due to Agent Orange exposure, is denied as there is no evidence of current disability.

The veteran's appeal regarding an evaluation in excess of 40 percent for diabetes mellitus has been withdrawn by the appellant's representative.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to inadequate VA examinations and new evidence submitted by the veteran.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for diabetes mellitus with erectile dysfunction, as his disability did not meet the criteria for a higher rating based on the need to regulate activities due to diabetes.

The Board has ordered additional development to determine if the veteran was exposed to PCBs or herbicides during service and to assess whether his current diabetes mellitus and colon cancer are related to such exposure.

The veteran's appeals for increased ratings for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction and lumbosacral strain with spina bifida were denied. The case is remanded for further development.

The Board has determined that the veteran's diabetes mellitus, type 2, is caused or aggravated by steroid medications prescribed for his service-connected COPD. The decision grants service connection for this condition.

The veteran's TDIU was granted effective from August 23, 2005, due to the combined effect of his service-connected disabilities.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for further development regarding his claims of service connection for diabetes mellitus and a rating increase for PTSD.

The Board has determined that the veteran's type 2 diabetes mellitus is not related to his military service, including exposure to Agent Orange. The disability is secondary to alcohol abuse.

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for diabetes mellitus has been dismissed due to the death of the appellant.

The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus and bilateral eye disorders, finding that the veteran's conditions did not manifest during his active duty or as a result of exposure to herbicide agents. The Board also found no evidence of continuity of symptoms after discharge.

The veteran's claim for automobile and adaptive equipment is denied as his lower extremity disability is not related to a service-connected condition.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased evaluations for diabetes mellitus and PTSD, finding that his conditions did not warrant higher ratings based on their current manifestations. The TDIU claim was also denied as the veteran's service-connected disabilities did not render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation.