Diabetes Board decisions

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus as it was not incurred in or aggravated by active military service and there is no evidence of exposure to Agent Orange. The benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply.

The Board has determined that the veteran's diabetes mellitus requires a 20 percent rating, but his coronary artery disease does not warrant any separate evaluation. The issue of service connection for coronary artery disease is being remanded to obtain clarification from Dr. H regarding whether the veteran currently carries a diagnosis of this condition.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for hypertension, diabetes mellitus, residuals of amputation of the right lower extremity below the knee joint, and residuals of amputation of the toes of the left foot. The evidence does not support a finding that these conditions are related to his active military service.

The Board denied the veteran's request for an effective date prior to May 8, 2001 for the award of service connection for diabetes mellitus evaluated as 20 percent disabling. The effective date was established as May 8, 2001 due to the retroactive effectuation based on a liberalizing law.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings for diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities, and diabetic nephropathy and hypertension are being remanded to allow for additional development.

The Board has determined that the veteran's diabetes mellitus, type II, with diabetic nephrology and diabetic neuropathy, lower extremities, does not require regulation of activities or episodes of ketoacidosis/hypoglycemia requiring hospitalization. Therefore, a higher rating is denied.

The VA granted service connection for diabetes mellitus and assigned an initial disability rating of 20 percent.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus and residuals of a lobectomy, finding no evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have any of the claimed conditions related to his active service and thus denied all claims for service connection.

The Board has dismissed the veteran's appeal of the May 2000 rating decision denying service connection for diabetes mellitus due to his failure to file a timely substantive appeal.

The VA has denied the veteran's claims for higher initial evaluations for peripheral polyneuropathy of both feet, secondary to diabetes mellitus. The disabilities are currently rated as 10 percent disabling from April 12, 2001.

The veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD and diabetes mellitus were denied as there is no medical evidence linking the conditions to his military service.

The veteran's claim for service connection for type II diabetes mellitus was denied as there is no evidence of in-service disease or injury, and the presumption of herbicide exposure does not apply due to lack of actual service in Vietnam.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling VA examinations to assess his diabetes mellitus and knee disorders.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 40 percent for diabetes mellitus type II, finding that his disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for a 40 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 7913.

The Board has determined that the veteran's diabetes mellitus is not related to service, including exposure to Agent Orange or methylacetoacetate. The claim for service connection is denied.

The Board found that the veteran's disabilities do not meet the criteria for special monthly pension benefits based on the need for regular aid and attendance of another person or at the housebound rate.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for an eye disability claimed as secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus, finding that there was no evidence of a current eye disability other than blepharitis and noting that diabetic retinopathy or cataracts were not related to his diabetes.

The veteran's service-connected Type II diabetes mellitus requires treatment with insulin and a restricted diet, but does not require regulation of activities. The claim for an increased evaluation is denied.

The veteran's unauthorized private medical expenses incurred on September 5, 2003 for emergency treatment were approved as the condition was deemed to be of such a nature that a prudent layperson would have reasonably expected delay in seeking immediate medical attention would have been hazardous to life or health.