GERD (acid reflux) Board decisions

The Board found that the veteran's claimed upper gastrointestinal disorders did not begin during or are causally linked to service. The preponderance of evidence is against the claims for service connection.

The veteran's duodenal ulcer disease with hiatus hernia and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), status post-fundoplication, antrectomy and vagotomy is appropriately rated as for post-gastrectomy syndrome. The appeal is granted.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for a compensable rating for duodenal ulcer and an effective date prior to May 22, 1997, for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and hiatal hernia. The issues were remanded for issuance of a statement of the case regarding secondary service connection for GERD and hiatal hernia.

The VA has granted a 20 percent rating for the service-connected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) effective since December 9, 1999.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for hypertension and gastroesophageal reflux disease, finding no evidence of these conditions in service or within one year post-service.

The Board found no service connection for the claimed conditions and denied reopening of claims for carpal tunnel syndrome, hypertension, and rheumatoid arthritis.

The Board has determined that the veteran incurred GERD, claimed as a disorder manifested by chest pain, in service and granted service connection for this condition.

The Board denied an increased evaluation for hiatal hernia with gastroesophageal reflux, currently rated at 30 percent disabling.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected duodenal ulcer and gastroesophageal reflux disease did not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation, as his symptoms were primarily manifested by complaints of gastrointestinal pain and discomfort without more severe manifestations.

The Board found that the veteran's irritable bowel syndrome with gastroesophageal reflux disease and diverticulosis warranted a rating of 10 percent, but not in excess. The condition was characterized by symptoms such as abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, and constipation.

The Board has determined that the veteran is entitled to service connection for rectocele and gastrointestinal disorder (GERD) as these conditions are related to her active military service. Service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome was not established due to lack of evidence linking it to service.

The RO denied increased ratings for the veteran's left knee disability and gastroesophageal disorder. The RO granted a 20 percent rating for the left knee disability, effective from April 6, 1999.

The veteran's principal disabilities do not meet the criteria for special monthly pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance due to his ability to care for himself without assistance from others.

The Board denied an effective date earlier than March 31, 2001 for the award of service connection for CAD, mood disorder with depression and anxiety, and GERD with symptoms of hiatal hernia, as well as entitlement to special monthly compensation.

The Board found that there is no current evidence of a stomach condition, and thus denied the veteran's claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for a gastric disorder, including gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

The Board has granted service connection for all the claimed conditions and assigned each a zero percent (noncompensable) evaluation.

The veteran's claims for service connection and compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for a gastric ulcer with hiatal hernia and gastroesophageal reflux disorder were denied by the RO.

The Board found that the interruption of vocational rehabilitation benefits was proper, but the discontinuance of these benefits was not. The veteran's case was placed in 'interrupted status' and then later in 'discontinued status'.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected conditions do not warrant a compensable evaluation in any of the cases. The preponderance of evidence is against the claims for increased evaluations.