GERD (acid reflux) Board decisions

The Board dismissed the appeals for pseudofolliculitis barbae and rhinitis. Service connection was denied for several conditions, including neurological damage in both legs, IBS, GERD, cervical spine disability, migraines, plantar fasciitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, dry skin, erectile dysfunction, right knee disability, low back pain with arthritis and instability, and sinusitis. The appeals for left ankle disability, left shoulder disability, right shoulder disability, and HIV were remanded.

The veteran's appeal for a higher rating for GERD was granted. The Board found that the veteran's symptoms warranted a 60% rating due to severe impairment of health.

The Board remanded the claim for a higher rating of GERD to obtain a VA medical addendum opinion addressing the severity of the condition with and without medication.

The Board remanded the case to correct an error in evaluating the veteran's GERD. The VA needs to conduct a more thorough examination.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 30 percent for service-connected GERD because the evidence did not show severe impairment of health.

The Board granted the Veteran's appeal and restored a 60 percent rating for GERD, effective October 1, 2021.

The appeal for an increased disability rating for GERD was dismissed because the veteran passed away during the pendency of the appeal.

The Board remanded the veteran's claim for service connection of GERD to correct duty to assist errors and to further develop the relationship between GERD and PTSD.

The Board denied service connection for all claimed conditions, including allergic rhinitis, psychiatric disorders, chronic fatigue syndrome, and others, based on the Veteran's presence in the Southwest Asia theater of operations.

The veteran's claim for service connection of foot pain was denied. A 30 percent rating for IBS and GERD was granted. The claims for left knee pain and right knee pain were remanded.

The Board denied service connection for obstructive sleep apnea, Parkinson's disease with tremors, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and a respiratory disability. It also denied increased ratings for coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and an earlier effective date for TDIU.

The Board remands the claims for service connection for obstructive sleep apnea and gastroesophageal reflux disease to obtain additional medical opinions.

The Board remands the Veteran's claims for a separate compensable evaluation for right knee joint instability, a rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected right knee osteoarthritis limitation of extension, TDIU based on a single disability (right knee), and ratings in excess of 50 percent and 10 percent for anxiety disorder not otherwise specified and GERD respectively, to ensure adequate medical examinations are conducted.

The Board remanded the claim for a higher rating of GERD because the VA examinations were insufficient and did not consider the severity of symptoms without medication.

The Board remanded the claims for an initial compensable rating for psoriasis with rosacea and tinea cruris, and for a rating in excess of 30 percent for IBS with GERD. New VA examinations are required to assess the severity of these conditions.

The veteran's claim for a higher rating for his left hand injury was denied, but the claim for service connection of GERD was sent back for further review.

The veteran's claims for gastroesophageal reflux disease and a stomach condition were dismissed. The claim for obstructive sleep apnea as secondary to service-connected major depressive disorder was granted.

The Board remanded the claim for service connection of GERD, including as secondary to PTSD. The Veteran's statements about symptoms during and after service were not adequately addressed.

The Board denied the veteran's appeals for a higher rating for GERD and for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss.

The veteran's claim for a 30 percent disability rating for GERD has been granted. The Board found that the criteria for this rating were met based on an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence.