Diabetes Board decisions

The veteran's diabetes mellitus was not incurred in or aggravated by active military service and may not be presumed to have been so incurred. The claim for service connection is denied.

The Board found no evidence of service connection due to exposure to herbicides or duty in Vietnam, and the veteran's diabetes mellitus was not shown to be related to his military service.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for further review of new evidence submitted since the last supplemental statement of the case.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II but denied it on the merits.

The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus and prostate cancer, finding that the conditions were not incurred or aggravated by service and did not arise from exposure to herbicides (Agent Orange).

The veteran's appeal has been withdrawn by his representative prior to the Board making a decision.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus due to Agent Orange exposure, finding that there was no evidence of direct causation and noting that the diagnosis was not within one year post-service. The Board also found that the veteran did not meet the criteria for presumptive service connection based on exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board has determined that the veteran's diabetes mellitus is presumed to have resulted from his exposure to Agent Orange during service in Vietnam. The petition to reopen a claim of service connection for a respiratory disorder was denied as no new and material evidence had been submitted.

The Board has found that service connection for diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy of the feet is not warranted, as there is no evidence linking these conditions to service or secondary to diabetes.

The veteran needs regular assistance feeding himself, bathing, dressing, walking, and taking prescribed medication, and requires care or assistance on a regular basis for protection from hazards or dangers incident to his daily environment. The Board has determined that the criteria for special monthly pension based on a need for regular aid and attendance are met.

The veteran's disabilities do not meet the criteria for special monthly pension based on need for aid and attendance of another person or being permanently housebound.

The Board has determined that the veteran's diabetes mellitus does not warrant an initial evaluation in excess of 40 percent, as it is currently treated with insulin and a restricted diet.

The veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection of Type II diabetes mellitus was denied as his application was received within one year after the change in law adding it to the list of presumptive conditions.

The veteran's hypertension is found to be secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. For the period prior to February 14, 2005, he was granted a noncompensable rating for thoracic spine contusion. From February 14, 2005, he is granted a 10% rating.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased evaluations for various conditions, including diabetes mellitus, left ear hearing loss, hiatal hernia with Barrett's esophagus, and facial and neck scarring. The preponderance of evidence did not support higher ratings under VA rating criteria.

The veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus requires the use of insulin or oral hypoglycemic agent and restricted diet, but does not require regulation of activities. The Board finds that a higher initial rating is not warranted.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities, when combined with his education and occupational experience, are insufficient to preclude his participation in all forms of substantially gainful employment.

The veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II, is manifested by the need for oral hypoglycemic agents and a restricted diet. However, it does not require insulin or episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions.,The veteran has active pathology of nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy with corrected vision to 20/30-1, bilaterally.

The Board found that the veteran's vision loss due to optic atrophy, diabetes mellitus, bilateral cataracts, and astigmatism was not caused by VA medical care or an event reasonably foreseeable in furnishing such care. The claim is therefore denied.

The Board has remanded the case due to inconsistencies in medical opinions regarding the relationship between the veteran's obesity, diabetes mellitus, and venous insufficiency. The veteran is asked to provide information about his medical treatment prior to 2000 so that VA can obtain relevant records.