Glaucoma decisions — 2008
129 indexed Board decisions in 2008.
Badges describe the whole decision, not the outcome for every condition listed. An appeal can grant one issue and deny or remand another. Check the original decision for each issue; these outcomes do not predict your claim.
- Whole decision: Partly grantedDecember 2008
The veteran's claim for service connection for grand mal epilepsy was granted, but the glaucoma and back disability claims were denied.,The glaucoma claim was denied as there is no evidence linking it to service. The back disability claim was granted based on a history of treatment.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)December 2008
The veteran's service-connected disabilities prevent him from securing and maintaining gainful employment, warranting a TDIU rating. The case is being remanded for further examination to determine if the veteran meets the schedular requirements or if an extra-schedular TDIU rating is warranted.
- Whole decision: DeniedDecember 2008
The veteran's cataracts and glaucoma have not met the criteria for a compensable rating prior to April 8, 2004. For ratings from April 8, 2004 onwards, he has not been granted the maximum disability rating of 30 percent.
- Whole decision: GrantedDecember 2008
The Board has determined that the veteran does not have current residuals of a fractured right metatarsal, and his eye disorder is service-connected. The effective date for this service connection remains to be determined.
- Whole decision: DeniedDecember 2008
The veteran's claims for service connection for pancreatitis and glaucoma were denied, while the claim for PTSD is addressed in the REMAND portion of the decision.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)December 2008
The veteran is seeking service connection for glaucoma and sleep apnea. The Board has determined that a VA examination is required to determine the nature, extent, and etiology of these conditions in order to decide their relationship with service.
- Whole decision: DeniedDecember 2008
The Board found no evidence of a relationship between the veteran's diagnosed uveitis, iritis and glaucoma of the left eye and his military service. The claim for service connection was denied.
- Whole decision: DeniedDecember 2008
The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral conjunctivitis with glaucoma, as well as his claim to reopen a previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for post-operative residuals of a laminectomy. The issue regarding a rating in excess of 10 percent for left pyeloplasty with hydronephrosis was remanded.
- Whole decision: DeniedDecember 2008
The veteran's service-connected bilateral angle recession glaucoma is currently rated at 20 percent, and the RO has determined that a higher rating is not warranted.
- Whole decision: GrantedDecember 2008
The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for glaucoma of the left eye and granted it, finding that there is a current diagnosis of glaucoma, evidence of trauma during service, and opinions linking the disability to service.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)November 2008
The Board has determined that further development is required for the veteran's claims, including a VA eye examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral pterygium and to provide an opinion on whether any glaucoma found is related to in-service herbicide exposure or diabetes mellitus.
- Whole decision: DeniedNovember 2008
The Board denied the veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for glaucoma and to reopen her claim for a psychiatric disorder. The Board found that there was no evidence linking the current diagnosis of glaucoma to military service.
- Whole decision: GrantedNovember 2008
The veteran's service-connected bilateral glaucoma renders him unemployable, and the Board grants his appeal for total disability based on individual unemployability.
- Whole decision: DeniedNovember 2008
The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, periodontal disease, right elbow disability, left hip disability, varicose veins in both lower extremities, toenail fungus, and cluster and tension headaches. The appeals are all dismissed as the evidence does not support these claims.
- Whole decision: DeniedNovember 2008
The Board has determined that the veteran's currently demonstrated glaucoma is not shown to be due to any event or incident of his period of active service, nor is it shown to have been caused or aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus.
- Whole decision: DeniedNovember 2008
The veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of a right foot injury, sinus disability due to exposure to Agent Orange, and glaucoma due to exposure to Agent Orange were all denied as there is no evidence showing these conditions were incurred or aggravated during service. The veteran's current symptoms are not shown to be related to his military service.
- Whole decision: DeniedNovember 2008
The Board has determined that an effective date earlier than September 11, 1997 for the award of additional aid and attendance allowance under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1114(r)(2) is legally precluded due to the veteran's service-connected conditions.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)November 2008
The Board has remanded the case for further development, including scheduling a VA examination to determine if the veteran's current glaucoma is related to her in-service eye issues.
- Whole decision: DeniedNovember 2008
The Board denied the appellant's claim for service connection for the cause of her husband's death, finding that there was no evidence linking his death to his military service.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)October 2008
The veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for scheduling a video conference hearing at the Indianapolis RO. The case will be returned to the Board after the hearing.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.