Diabetes Board decisions

The veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus type II is rated as 40 percent disabling due to the requirement of insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities.

The Board denied an increased rating for diabetes mellitus and a higher initial rating for left side sciatic neuropathy, as the evidence did not support ratings in excess of 20 percent and 10 percent, respectively.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings and earlier effective dates were denied as the evidence did not support higher ratings or earlier effective dates.

The Board remands the case for a VA medical opinion regarding the veteran's exposure to asbestos and its potential role in causing or worsening his death.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a low back disability, diabetes mellitus (presumed secondary to herbicide exposure), gastroesophageal reflux disease with a hiatal hernia, and effective dates earlier than June 18, 2004, and February 9, 2005, for the grant of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, respectively.

The Board remands the claims for further development, including obtaining a medical opinion on whether the disabilities are secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus and any aggravation by that condition.

The Board denied service connection for a bilateral visual disorder, tinea pedis, erectile dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy of the upper and lower extremities, hypertension, and special monthly compensation based on loss of use of a creative organ. However, it granted service connection for tinea pedis secondary to service-connected tinea pubis and erectile dysfunction secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus type II.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an increased rating and service connection, finding no evidence of a compensable disability or conditions as claimed.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection, finding that the evidence did not support higher ratings or additional service connection.

The veteran's diabetes mellitus was rated at 40 percent effective June 6, 2005, and separate ratings for peripheral neuropathy of the right and left lower extremities were granted.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an earlier effective date for service connection for diabetes mellitus, and for service connection for hypertension and headaches as secondary to diabetes mellitus.

The veteran's diabetes mellitus, type II, does not warrant a rating in excess of 20 percent and his service-connected disability is not sufficient to render him unable to obtain or maintain substantially gainful employment.

The Board remands the claims for service connection for hypertension and diabetes mellitus to schedule a VA examination.

The veteran's diabetes mellitus type II was not found to warrant a rating in excess of 20 percent, but his hypertension was determined to be aggravated by the service-connected diabetes.

The Board found that there was no clear and unmistakable error in the November 1980 decision which denied service connection for diabetes mellitus.

The veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 20 percent for diabetes mellitus with peripheral neuropathy was denied as the evidence did not support a higher rating.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for otitis externa, sinusitis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and right shoulder tendonitis as there was no evidence of these conditions during service or within a year of separation, and no competent medical evidence linking them to his military service.

The Board found that the preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate a current disability manifested by diabetic retinopathy or that the veteran's currently diagnosed glaucoma was caused or aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus.

The veteran's diabetes mellitus was rated at 20 percent, and service connection for the residuals of a cerebral vascular accident was granted as secondary to his service-connected diabetes.

The appeal is remanded to the RO for further development and readjudication of the issues on appeal.